Let’s talk about Michael Cohen as a prosecution witness.
As you may know, he’s set to testify Wednesday, for the second time this week, to the Manhattan grand jury reportedly mulling charges for Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels hush money case. You likely also know that Cohen would be a crucial witness in any trial that ensues for the former president. Of course, he arranged the payment to the porn actress in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, to keep her quiet about an alleged affair she said she had with Trump (which he very strongly denies).
But whenever Cohen’s name comes up in connection with potential charges, the conversation may turn to the former Trump fixer’s vulnerabilities as a witness and, therefore, challenges in successfully prosecuting the man for whom he did the fixing. Those are understandable concerns, but they could benefit from some perspective.
The bottom line is that prosecutors use challenging witnesses to make cases every day. And if Trump defense lawyers attack Cohen’s credibility and morality, they risk turning the tables back on their client.
First, on the notion of it being risky to use a witness with a criminal conviction or otherwise checkered past: It’s nothing new. Indeed, it’s routine practice for prosecutors around the country, including ones at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, where I was a prosecutor. People convicted of homicide, assault, theft, you name it — they’ve all been called to the stand to make cases against people charged with their own crimes.
It makes sense if you think about it. People involved in crime naturally have the best insights and information about their colleagues.
Plus, corroboration is key. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s prosecutors are surely doing everything they can to back up Cohen’s evidence with other witnesses and documents, so that the case doesn’t hang on Cohen alone. Such corroboration likely has given Bragg the confidence to move forward to this…
Read the full article here
