Trump Ends Defense in Hush Money Trial Without Testifying (2)

Donald Trump once vowed to take the witness stand in his hush money criminal trial in Manhattan, but his defense case wrapped up Tuesday morning without jurors hearing from the former president.

“Your honor, the defense rests,” Trump attorney Todd Blanche said after nearly five weeks of testimony, mostly from prosecution witnesses.

Trump’s decision spared him from a grueling cross-examination that would have put him at risk of undermining his own case by lashing out at prosecutors or even the judge, as the former president has done in other recent trials. Testifying also could have shifted the burden onto Trump instead of the prosecution, which must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

“This may be one of those few times when Donald Trump listened to his attorneys and took their advice,” said Miriam Baer, a vice dean at Brooklyn Law School and a former federal prosecutor.

Justice Juan Merchan sent the jury home for a week, setting closing arguments for May 28 as a result of the upcoming holiday weekend and other previously scheduled days off.

“At the end of the day, I think the best thing we can do is to adjourn now until next Tuesday,” Merchan said, adding that he hopes deliberations will begin “at some point next Wednesday.”

‘Tell the Truth’

While it’s rare for criminal defendants to testify, Trump told reporters in Mar-a-Lago on the eve of trial that he would take the stand, saying, “All I can do is tell the truth.”

But that assurance faded as the trial proceeded. On May 7, after the trial had already begun, Trump said he would “probably” testify.

Merchan earlier this month chided Trump for telling the press that a gag order barring the former president from publicly discussing jurors or witnesses to protect their safety also stopped him from taking the witness stand.

“I want to stress, Mr. Trump, that you have an absolute right to testify,” Merchan told the defendant when the jury wasn’t present. “It is a fundamental right.”

On Tuesday afternoon, lawyers argued to the judge how to instruct jurors on the relevant law before they start deliberations. While a standard part of the process, the instructions have taken on greater importance because of the unusual nature of the 34 false-records charges.

To make each crime a felony rather than a misdemeanor, as prosecutors seek to do, jurors must find Trump intended to commit another crime. Much of the debate on Tuesday centered on how the judge will explain those other alleged crimes, including election law violations and tax crimes.

Trump is on trial for allegedly falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election. While he didn’t take the stand, Trump has discussed the charges against him extensively outside of the courtroom, saying the case is part of a “witch hunt” to undermine his campaign to return to the White House.

Trump’s lawyers aggressively questioned prosecution witnesses, including Daniels, Michael Cohen and Keith Davidson, the lawyer who negotiated her $130,000 hush deal.

A few defense themes emerged during cross-examination: Trump denied having a sexual encounter with Daniels; Cohen reached a nondisclosure agreement with her, but that wasn’t illegal; and Cohen was paid $420,000 in 2017 for legal services, not a reimbursement.

Trump’s lawyers also sought to show Trump had nothing to do with recording the payments in Trump Organization books, and that prosecutors failed to prove the payment had anything to do with influencing the 2016 election.

Long-Shot Bid

On Monday, Trump attorney Todd Blanche urged Merchan to dismiss the case before it goes to the jury, a long shot.

Prosecutors, he said, offered no evidence that Trump intended to “mislead or hide or to falsify the business records.” He also said there’s “zero evidence” that Trump sought to influence the 2016 election. But Merchan, who hasn’t ruled on the motion yet, appeared skeptical.

One of the two witnesses called by the Trump team, attorney Robert Costello, was sharply criticized by Merchan for his conduct on the stand. The judge blasted Costello for saying “jeez” when objections by prosecutors to his testimony were repeatedly sustained, and then angrily told Costello his behavior was “contemptuous” after he gave the judge “side eye.”

It was a sign that Merchan wouldn’t tolerate a witness misbehaving, a real risk for Trump based on his conduct in two recent civil trials.

In New York’s fraud trial against the former president, he repeatedly clashed with the judge on the witness stand, and was threatened with removal from the courtroom. In the trial of New York writer E. Jean Carroll’s defamation suit, Trump fumed after five minutes on the witness stand where his testimony was limited by a judge’s order. At one point, the judge spoke over Trump to stop him and then struck his answer from the record.

Trump lost both trials.

Gene Rossi, a former federal prosecutor, said Trump’s decision not to testify in the hush money case was the right move. Cross-examination would have risked bringing out the former president’s unsavory conduct in the Carroll case, which would have put him in a very bad light.

“He doesn’t come across as a truth teller when he testifies under oath,” Rossi said. “That is not a good look.”

(Updates with debate over the wording of jury instructions.)

To contact the reporters on this story:
Erik Larson in New York at elarson4@bloomberg.net;
David Voreacos in New York at dvoreacos@bloomberg.net;
Sabrina Willmer in Washington at swillmer2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou at megkolfopoul@bloomberg.net

Anthony Aarons, Steve Stroth

© 2024 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.