The criminal trial of Donald Trump didn’t have to end this way. The prosecution’s case displayed flaws that were not adequately covered, even with weeks of testimony, over 200 exhibits, and a well-prepared presentation by the Manhattan district attorney’s team. Trump’s lawyers, if they had played their cards right, could have secured a hung jury or at least a misdemeanour conviction.
Trump Trial Flaws: An Examination of the Prosecution's Case
The prosecution's approach, while polished, had its weaknesses. Their case hinged on a variety of elements that were difficult to substantiate beyond reasonable doubt. For instance, it was critical to prove that Trump knew about and facilitated false business records. This was complicated by the fact that Trump was serving as president when these records were allegedly manipulated. The jury's inclination often leans towards the prosecution, as they have the authority of indictment and the advantage of presenting their narrative and marshalling witnesses.
The Role of a Compelling Defence Narrative
Reports from various sources suggest that I have practised criminal law for over two decades and observed that a solid defence narrative is pivotal. Jurors typically align with prosecutors unless the defence provides a compelling counter-narrative. The defence needs to tell a simpler, more relatable story for it to resonate with the jury. However, Trump’s defence strategy was a chaotic assembly of denials and personal attacks rather than a coherent story.
The Impact of a Chaotic Defence Strategy
Trump’s defence team seemed to adopt a strategy more suited for media spectacles than courtrooms. This approach might yield results in a political campaign or on news platforms but fails in a courtroom setting. Instead of a robust legal defence, the tactics used created unnecessary clutter that obscured the significant flaws in the prosecution’s case.
Trump's Initial Path to Victory
At the outset, Trump’s path to victory appeared clear. He faced 34 counts related to falsifying business records in connection with a $130,000 hush-money payment. The only direct evidence against him was the testimony of Michael Cohen, a witness with a tainted record including guilty pleas for lying to Congress and financial crimes. A strategic defence could have questioned the reliability of Cohen’s testimony and argued that those around Trump orchestrated the scheme independently, while Trump focused on his presidential duties.
Failures of the Defence’s Strategy
Despite these opportunities, Trump’s defence diluted its arguments by overcomplicating its strategy. For example, during Todd Blanche’s closing argument, the defence spent hours making numerous points, none of which clearly underscored the prosecution’s weaknesses. The jury needed to focus on the prosecution’s gaps, but the defence’s scattergun approach distracted from these essential points.
The Prosecution’s Evidential Weaknesses
Although the prosecution offered limited evidence of Trump’s direct involvement in falsifying business records, most other pieces of evidence were solid. Nevertheless, the defence’s credibility suffered by disputing facts that were undeniable, such as absurdly claiming that large payments to Cohen were for legal services, even misappropriated amounts.
The Lengthy and Detrimental Cross-Examination of Michael Cohen
The trial’s length, exacerbated by the defence’s “deny everything” strategy, was a tactical misstep. A skilled defence lawyer would have acknowledged Trump’s affair with Stormy Daniels upfront, avoiding a prosecution-led narrative proving the affair while steering clear of unwarranted attacks on Daniels herself, which likely drew jury sympathy.
Missed Opportunities in Defence Tactics
Rather than focusing narrowly on critical points of Cohen’s testimony that were not corroborated by documents, phone records, or messages, the defence adopted an exhaustive approach, challenging every lie and misdeed. This allowed the prosecutors to highlight areas where Cohen's testimony was consistent and supported by evidence, reinforcing their case.
The Jury’s Potential Response
Given the circumstances, a not-guilty verdict seemed improbable, but a better-executed defence could have led one of the two lawyers on the jury to vote to acquit, potentially resulting in a hung jury. Alternatively, a more strategic defence might have led the jury to find Trump guilty of a lesser misdemeanor charge, considered a win under the circumstances.
Trump’s Reflection on His Defence Team’s Strategy
Trump’s defence approach mirrored his personal style: relentless and uncompromising. This tactic has often served him well, yet it proved counterproductive in a Manhattan courtroom setting. The inherent characteristics of denying everything and refusing to back down did not resonate well with the judicial process.
The Missteps in Legal Strategy
The trial of Donald Trump showcases the pitfalls of a fragmented and aggressive defence strategy within a courtroom context. With a more simplified narrative and targeted approach, the outcome could have been different. The defence's failure to streamline its strategy and the decision to play by Trump’s political tactics rather than sound legal principles resulted in a missed opportunity for a more favourable verdict.
Comments