Are Donald Trump’s lawyers worried about Michael Cohen’s power as a prosecution witness? That’s one way to look at a bombastic letter they wrote to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
The defense letter complains that Bragg’s office prosecuted former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg for perjury at the same time it intends to put Cohen on the stand against Trump. Weisselberg’s perjury plea on Monday stemmed partly from the trusted Trump associate’s testimony during the civil fraud trial that ended in a massive ruling against the former president, Weisselberg and others. In the letter, Trump’s lawyers contest Judge Arthur Engoron’s finding that Cohen testified credibly and even urge Bragg not to call Cohen to the stand in the upcoming criminal trial. Trump is charged with allegedly falsifying business records to cover up hush money paid ahead of the 2016 election. He has pleaded not guilty.
Obviously, the prosecution won’t be taking the defense up on that suggestion. And the defense will have the opportunity to cross-examine Cohen, who, to be sure, has a criminal history that a defense lawyer would want to explore in front of a jury. But it’s that jury that will determine the credibility of Trump’s former fixer in this case, as Engoron did in the civil case.
Crucial to Engoron’s credibility finding was the corroboration of Cohen’s testimony by other evidence at trial. The same dynamic will be at play in the criminal case, a forum where it’s not unusual for prosecutors to call witnesses with criminal histories to make their cases. So while much is unique about the case that’s in line to be the first criminal trial against a former U.S. president, calling a witness who’s previously convicted of crime in order to help prove another crime occurred is routine. Preventing a jury from hearing that witness’ testimony at all would be more unusual.
Read the full article here
