The Likelihood of Trump Taking the Stand in the Hush Money Trial
In recent days, the defense team of former President Donald Trump has been employing a series of legal strategies that are not apparently aimed at achieving a verdict of not guilty. Instead, these tactics seem to be designed more for the benefit of Trump himself, creating the impression that he feels more in control and is happier. This is a worrying development, as it could indicate that the defense has given up on any prospects of a favorable outcome.
It is not uncommon for a legal team to prioritize their client's emotional state and self-perception over more strategic considerations, especially if the evidence against the client is overwhelming. Given Trump's current situation, it seems that his legal team has concluded that any effort to secure a not guilty verdict is futile, and thus, they are focusing on strategies to ensure they actually get paid. This is a stark reminder of the fluidity and complexity of the legal process, where personal and strategic considerations often intertwine.
Indeed, if the defense relies on securing a hung jury, which means a jury that cannot reach a consensus, with support from a committed few jurors, it might be more advantageous for Trump to maintain a defiant and "Trumpy" demeanor. This is because jurors who are particularly sympathetic to Trump’s narrative might be more likely to be swayed by his persona. However, this approach carries significant risks, as it requires a level of control and consistency that Trump might not possess.
Previous Example of Testimony
It is important to note that Trump has previously taken the stand in a similar civil fraud trial, and the outcome was not favorable. During his testimony, the judge succinctly summarized why the jury did not find his testimony credible: he failed to answer simple questions and instead focused on tangential and irrelevant topics. This pattern of behavior suggests that Trump’s effectiveness as a witness is questionable, and his credibility may be further undermined in a high-profile criminal trial.
During cross-examination, Trump’s inability to answer even simple questions is reminiscent of a car salesman trying to deflect a customer’s concerns about affordability by extolling the car’s features. Such a pattern of behavior can easily erode the jury's trust and may lead to a more negative perception of the defendant.
Contrary to popular belief, defendants have survived trials where they have made admissions on the stand that were admitted as evidence. These admissions, rather than discrediting the defendant, can often be used to show honesty and cooperation, which can enhance their credibility. However, this requires a careful and strategic approach, something that Trump’s legal team may not be equipped to provide.
History provides a relevant example: at the Nuremberg trials, many defendants who made damaging admissions on the stand, like Albert Speer, were ultimately found credible and even received lighter sentences. Similarly, individuals like Hermann Goering, who tried to argue that he had no choice, were found guilty and sentenced to death. The key factor was not the admissions themselves but the overall demeanor and consistency of the defendant’s testimony.
Strategic Considerations for Not Taking the Stand
Given these complexities, it is highly unlikely that Trump will take the stand in this hush money trial. He has the right not to testify, and he does not even need to provide a defense. The judge will ensure that the jury understands that there is no automatic disadvantage to considering a defendant who chooses not to testify. The defense team may argue that withholding testimony is a strategic move, citing the potential for the jury to draw negative inferences.
However, the issue lies in the defense’s contradictory claim that the sexual encounters testified to by Stormy Daniels and referenced by David Pecker never occurred. If Trump were to take the stand, he would be compelled to address these claims, which would undoubtedly damage his credibility. Furthermore, the defense’s stance could be used by the prosecution to introduce evidence that would discredit his testimony.
The principle of law, Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, means that if a witness is found to be lying about one thing, the jury is free to assume they are lying about everything. This is a formidable challenge for Trump, and any admission, no matter how limited, could be detrimental. Additionally, the prosecution can use other lines of questioning, such as the empty chair doctrine, to challenge the defense’s narrative. This refers to the fact that the defense may have failed to call certain key witnesses, thereby undermining their credibility.
These legal and strategic considerations suggest that it would be a risky and counterproductive move for Trump to take the stand. His potential to connect with one juror and create a hung jury is unlikely to outweigh the significant risks associated with his proven inability to answer questions effectively on the stand.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is far more likely that Trump will choose not to take the stand in the hush money trial. The strategic advantages of avoiding testimony and the potential for further damage to his already fragile credibility outweigh any potential benefits. The defense’s best strategy might be to focus on securing a hung jury or relying on the principle of no inference from non-testimony.