Analysis: Was Trump's defense strategy effective against Cohen?
Observing the trial, it was evident that Michael Cohen captured the jury's attention as he directly engaged with them. Norm Eisen highlights the unique dynamics at play during Trump's defense.
The direct examination of Michael Cohen concluded in the Trump trial on Tuesday. Cohen's testimony strengthened the prosecution's case, in my opinion.
CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen is observing former President Donald Trump's Manhattan criminal trial and sharing his insights for this CNN Opinion series. Previous articles have covered topics such as the role of Michael Cohen in the prosecution and the impressive defense tactics used by Trump's lawyers.
During the recent court session, lead defense attorney Todd Blanche worked diligently to challenge the evidence presented. Despite his efforts, the cross-examination appeared to be somewhat ineffective. Much like Stormy Daniels in the past, Michael Cohen was able to hold his ground. As of now, the prosecution's case remains strong. The upcoming days will reveal whether there will be any changes, but for now, the cross-examination of Cohen did not start off on a positive note.
Testimony at the trial focused on the meetings Cohen had with Trump in January and February 2017. These meetings were the third and fourth out of four key interactions between Cohen and Trump. The prosecution presented evidence such as emails, invoices, and photographs to support Cohen's claims about Trump's involvement in the alleged illegal repayment scheme. This scheme is at the core of the case's 34 felony document falsification charges.
During the February meeting at the White House, Trump supposedly directed Cohen to "deal with Allen [Weisselberg, the Trump Organization CFO]." Weisselberg's handwritten notes on the hush money cover-up played a crucial role in narrating the story of the $130,000 payment to adult film actress Daniels. This payment was made to keep her quiet before the 2016 presidential elections regarding allegations of a sexual encounter with Trump, which he has denied.
Norm Eisen
Norm Eisen
Around an hour into Cohen's testimony on Tuesday, the prosecution changed tactics. They used a strategy known to trial lawyers as "drawing the sting." This means they anticipated how the witness would be challenged during cross-examination and addressed it upfront during their questioning. This tactic is used to minimize the impact on the jury.
In my estimation, Assistant District Attorney Susan Hoffinger spent more than an hour questioning Cohen intermittently about his numerous lies regarding Trump's involvement in the Daniels payoff, persuading others to do the same, and Cohen's own past criminal convictions, including perjury. Cohen stated that he engaged in these illegal activities out of loyalty to Trump and to protect him.
During a pivotal moment in this strategy, Hoffinger questioned Cohen about his previous admission during the Trump civil fraud trial where he confessed to lying when he pleaded guilty in 2018 to tax and bank fraud. Cohen clarified that he did not dispute the actual misconduct of failing to pay taxes or providing false information on bank documents. He believed that as a first-time offender, these actions did not warrant prosecution. However, he revealed that he was pressured into pleading guilty by federal prosecutors who threatened to charge his wife. This explanation will be crucial when the defense revisits this issue later in the week, allowing Cohen to respond, "I already explained that I was coerced."
The direct examination ended just before lunch with Cohen testifying about Trump on an emotional note. He expressed regret for doing things he shouldn't have, such as lying and bullying, in order to maintain loyalty and fulfill Trump's requests. This led him to compromise his moral values and face consequences, affecting his family as well.
During this moment and at various points throughout the day, something stood out to me that I hadn't witnessed with any other trial witness. Cohen was speaking directly to the jury, who were all focused on him. It appeared that he had formed a genuine connection with the jury through his extensive direct examination.
Former President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 14 in New York City.
Former President Donald Trump sits in the courtroom at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 14 in New York City.
Michael M. Santiago/Pool/Reuters
Related article
The first day of Michael Cohen’s cross-examination in the Trump hush money trial was highly anticipated. Everyone was eager to see Blanche start the cross-examination. Usually, people slowly return from lunch to the courtroom, but on this day, many were already lined up early to secure a good seat when I came back to the courthouse entrance.
Blanche had to start strong because the defense was behind. He came out swinging, but unfortunately, his first question to Cohen was a miss. He asked, "Did you call me a 'crying little s–t' on TikTok?" Cohen replied calmly, saying it sounded like something he might say. This even made Blanche's co-counsel, Susan Necheles, smile.
However, these questions had nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. Another question about Cohen criticizing Necheles also led to objections and a bench conference with Judge Juan Merchan. Although we don't know the details yet, the judge seemed to scold Blanche and ordered the questions to be removed from the record.
The jury did not have a good impression as Blanche struggled with objections sustained while questioning Cohen. He tried to rattle Cohen with topics like media appearances, anti-Trump podcast, and selling anti-Trump merchandise, but it didn't work out as planned.
Blanche did manage to pick up some momentum by pointing out Cohen's selective memory and bias towards Trump. He also brought up Cohen's desire for Trump's conviction and his derogatory social media comments, but Cohen remained unfazed throughout the questioning.
Get our free weekly newsletter
Sign up for CNN Opinion’s newsletter.
Join us on Twitter and Facebook
The questions asked during the trial did not seem to weaken Cohen's connection with the jury, challenge his credibility, or cast doubt on the prosecution's evidence. The defense strategy slightly improved when Blanche questioned Cohen's motive for cooperating with the DA to reduce his prison sentence. However, it was not enough. By the end of the afternoon session, it was evident that Blanche had not made the strong impression required. The gap between success and failure was significant.
We are still early in the cross-examination process, with much ground left to cover. The outcome could go either way for Blanche or Cohen. As my late mother used to say, the first impression is crucial, and Blanche's was not very impressive. In contrast, Cohen, following in Daniels' footsteps, is off to a strong start in the cross-examination. Blanche has some time to regroup as court is not in session on Wednesday. Let's wait and see what Thursday has in store.
Editor's P/S:
The cross-examination of Michael Cohen in the Trump hush money trial has been a crucial moment, with both the prosecution and defense presenting compelling arguments. Cohen's direct testimony strengthened the prosecution's case, as he provided detailed accounts of his interactions with Trump and the alleged illegal repayment scheme. However, the defense's cross-examination, led by Todd Blanche, appeared somewhat ineffective, failing to challenge Cohen's credibility or cast doubt on the evidence.
As the trial progresses, it remains to be seen whether Blanche can turn the tide in the defense's favor. Blanche's initial strategy focused on attacking Cohen's character and bias, but this approach did not seem to resonate with the jury. Cohen remained composed and maintained his connection with the jury, which could prove advantageous for the prosecution. The outcome of the trial hinges on the jury's perception of the witnesses' credibility and the strength of the evidence presented by both sides.
