For the ultimate stage of the prosecutor’s case within the Individuals of the State of New York v. Donald Trump, the prosecution is anticipated to name the witness who has acquired the lion’s share of consideration for the reason that indictment was introduced a yr in the past: Michael Cohen.
Earlier than the trial began, some observers thought Mr. Cohen can be an indispensable star witness. They stated that with out Mr. Cohen, the district legal professional couldn’t set up the weather of the charged felony offenses. However having seen the proof laid out meticulously and methodically by the prosecution these previous three weeks, I discover myself questioning: Do prosecutors even want Michael Cohen as a witness? Does the jury want to listen to from him?
To make sure, the case wouldn’t exist however for Mr. Cohen. It’s he who first revealed to prosecutors within the particular counsel Robert Mueller’s workplace (I used to be one of many particular counsel prosecutors) and in New York the hush-money scheme to purchase Stormy Daniels’s silence within the aftermath of the “Entry Hollywood” tape’s disclosure.
However since then, Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district legal professional, has amassed proof that seems to independently each show the crime and corroborate Mr. Cohen’s account.
To name Mr. Cohen as a witness carries with it not solely the reward of including additional important proof to the prosecution’s case, but in addition the chance of undermining the case with points associated to Mr. Cohen’s private baggage. He’s, like Ms. Daniels, a colourful character, catnip to the press, and his damaged bond along with his former boss, Mr. Trump, is inherently dramatic.
He joins a line of well-known underlings who turned state’s proof towards their boss. The prosecution might be counting on the testimony of an insider testifying “up,” towards his boss. And what these insiders even have in widespread is that they’ll communicate to the interior workings of an alleged conspiracy.
I’ve personally noticed this in organized crime circumstances (Salvatore Gravano, the previous underboss of the Gambino crime household, testifying towards the previous Gambino boss John Gotti), financial crime prosecutions (the previous Enron chief monetary officer Andrew Fastow testifying towards the previous chief executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling) and political corruption issues (Mr. Trump’s former deputy marketing campaign supervisor Rick Gates testifying towards the previous marketing campaign supervisor Paul Manafort).
Mr. Cohen can present an in depth insider account of the charged scheme and Mr. Trump’s alleged function in it. And since the trial has already established that there’s merely no various narrative that’s according to all of the trial proof, Mr. Cohen is way much less vital to its consequence than initially thought.
Testimony from witnesses like David Pecker, Jeffrey McConney and Hope Hicks has laid out a transparent narrative of a scheme to kill derogatory tales about candidate Trump and disseminate damaging accounts about his political adversaries — together with direct conversations with Mr. Trump. And smoking-gun handwritten notes of Trump Group monetary personnel present proof for the alleged cover-up of that scheme by way of documentation that disguises the reimbursement of the hush cash as authorized charges.
It’s a signal of the weird political dimension of this trial that Ms. Daniels, and never the much more legally damaging witnesses Mr. Pecker and Ms. Hicks, was topic to the much more intense cross-examination.
A key remaining situation — and one which Mr. Cohen can tackle — is whether or not Mr. Trump was conscious of the alleged cover-up scheme involving reimbursement checks to Mr. Cohen disguised as authorized funds. Mr. Cohen laid out the hush-money funds to Ms. Daniels by taking out a home-equity credit score line for $130,000, a undeniable fact that was effectively established by direct and circumstantial proof.
Take the handwritten notes from Allen Weisselberg, the previous Trump Group chief monetary officer. They reveal that he will need to have been conscious of the hush-money scheme and its alleged cover-up. His notes (and the notes of the previous Trump Group controller who prosecutors say helped to hold out the scheme) element reimburse Mr. Cohen the $130,000 the quantity would must be doubled, or “grossed” up, to account for taxes on the quantity of this disguised revenue. The concept Mr. Weisselberg, a Trump Group veteran who has apparently been prepared to serve time in jail slightly than flip towards Mr. Trump and remained on the Trump payroll even after his responsible pleas, would have permitted these funds on his personal is far-fetched. Trial proof establishes that he couldn’t approve bills over $10,000, and right here he can be approving not simply the fee of $130,000 to Mr. Cohen, however doubling it to make him entire.
Witness after witness — in addition to Mr. Trump’s personal phrases learn to the jury — attest to his being each a micromanager and a penny-pincher. And Mr. Trump signed examine after examine reimbursing Mr. Cohen for what he paid Ms. Daniels plus rather more. In brief, it appears implausible that both Mr. Cohen or Mr. Weisselberg would dare such a transfer with out Mr. Trumps’ permission.
Towards all this proof and extra, we at the moment are anticipated to listen to from Mr. Cohen. Profitable prosecutions can typically not be made with out such witnesses. That is notably true when the bosses consciously don’t go away a paper path. Mr. Trump famously groused about his White Home counsel taking notes, observing that certainly one of his favourite attorneys, Roy Cohn, by no means did.
So little question Mr. Bragg and his prosecutors consider they need to name Mr. Cohen to testify. Nonetheless, calling Mr. Cohen as a witness does carry important danger for Mr. Bragg. He brings baggage: He just lately claimed beneath oath in a New York civil fraud trial towards Mr. Trump (the place the court docket discovered him credible and dominated towards Mr. Trump) that he lied to a federal choose when he pleaded responsible to certainly one of a number of crimes. By the use of clarification, he appeared to contend he was pressured to plead responsible by the federal prosecutors.
Even accepting Mr. Cohen’s story, it means he lied to a federal choose after taking an oath to inform the reality — the identical oath he’ll take on the felony trial of Mr. Trump. And his story would assist an anticipated protection declare that the federal prosecutors have been so intent on making a case towards Mr. Trump that they have been prepared to trample on Mr. Cohen’s rights — and that ugly federal muck will splatter on the state prosecutors.
The opposite possibility is that Mr. Cohen is mendacity about not being responsible of the cost — which can be a really distinct chance given the proof towards him. If that’s the case, it will imply he lied within the current state court docket fraud case. As a federal choose in New York just lately concluded in denying Mr. Cohen’s movement for early termination of his felony sentence, he lied in a single discussion board or the opposite.
Nonetheless, that doesn’t imply Mr. Cohen shouldn’t be referred to as. I’ve repeatedly noticed an fascinating phenomenon in circumstances during which the prosecution has a mountain of impartial proof of guilt, however nonetheless calls a flawed insider to offer distinctive detailed and direct proof to the jury of the defendant’s guilt.
Jurors typically wish to hear somebody recount what they already know occurred, however that has not been stated instantly. The jurors will then typically attain a verdict of responsible, and regardless of having discovered the conspiracy existed as recounted by a key felony confederate — somebody like Mr. Cohen — they are going to later say they didn’t consider or want that witness’s testimony.
We are going to quickly study whether or not that may occur once more within the Individuals v. Trump.
Andrew Weissmann teaches on the N.Y.U. Faculty of Regulation and is a co-author of “The Trump Indictments: The Historic Charging Paperwork With Commentary.” He was a senior prosecutor in Robert Mueller’s particular counsel investigation and is a co-host of the podcast “Prosecuting Donald Trump.”
The Instances is dedicated to publishing a variety of letters to the editor. We’d like to listen to what you concentrate on this or any of our articles. Listed below are some suggestions. And right here’s our electronic mail: letters@nytimes.com.
Comply with the New York Instances Opinion part on Fb, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, X and Threads.
