Donald Trump Defense Team’s Biggest Mistakes at Trial

Donald Trump’s legal team battled against a mountain of evidence in his hush money trial. Along the way, they made some costly mistakes, some noted by Judge Juan Merchan.

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has been convicted by a jury on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to hide hush money payments to adult film actor Stormy Daniels in the run up to the 2016 presidential election.

Newsweek sought email comment from Trump’s attorney on Thursday.

Here are some of the most significant errors made before Trump emerged as the first U.S. president to become a convicted felon when his six-week trial ended at the Manhattan courthouse in New York City on Thursday.

The Robert Costello Fiasco

The defense team called attorney Robert Costello to counter the testimony of former Trump lawyer, Michael Cohen.

Very quickly, things went very, very wrong.

Costello, who gave unpaid advice to Cohen, was supposed to dismantle his testimony.

Instead, Costello interjected when Judge Merchan ruled on prosecution objections; told the stenographer to strike certain portions of testimony, loudly said “Jeez!” on one Merchan decision, rolled his eyes and then stared out Merchan when told to conduct himself.

Merchan got so mad that he cleared the courtroom of reporters and the jury, but by then the jury already knew what was going on.

Merchan then told Costello his behavior was “contemptuous” and challenged him to stare him out one more time.

“You don’t give me a side eye and you don’t roll your eyes! Are you staring me down?” Merchan said.

When Costello replied: “Can I say something, please?”, Merchan snapped: “No. No! This is not a conversation!”

Costello told Newsweek he had no comment on his testimony.

Stormy Daniels’ Testimony On Sexual Positions And Condoms

Several times, Judge Merchan expressed his amazement that the defense team didn’t put in any objections to Stormy Daniels’ colorful description of sex with Donald Trump.

At one point, she was leaning back in the witness box with legs up to show how Trump was lying on the bed and it was clear that she didn’t enjoy the sex.

“I was trying to think about anything other than what was happening there,” she told the jury.

All the jury needed to know was that she had sex with Trump but she told the court that Trump didn’t wear a condom, that she spanked him with a magazine and other colorful details.

Of Trump’s lawyer, Susan Necheles, Merchan noted: “Why on earth she wouldn’t object to the mention of a condom I don’t understand.”

Too Much Emphasis On Michael Cohen

The defense team hammered Michael Cohen’s testimony during cross-examination and tried to create a narrative of a duplicitous, lying attorney who was trying to frame Trump. But in doing so, they emphasized the prosecution’s point, that Cohen was working full time for Trump; was under Trump’s direction and was acting in Trump’s interests in covering up scandal.

Greg Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University in New York, told Newsweek that the overemphasis on Cohen was a “foolish” move by the Trump lawyers.

“It sounds like Trump’s lawyer bet the farm on the jury not believing Michael Cohen. That was a risky, and I think, foolish strategy,” he said.

“That falls squarely into the prosecution’s hands, suggesting that the crime was manipulating the election by paying hush money.”

According to Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University, there was very little room for Trump’s lawyers to deny Cohen’s evidence, given that it was backed up by Cohen’s secret recording of Trump and a large amount of interconnected testimony.

“Michael Cohen’s testimony does not stand alone. It is supported by the interconnected and overlapping testimony.”

“To reject Mr. Cohen’s testimony, you have to find that all the supporting testimony is also false, that it’s all a coordinated scheme by other witnesses to convict Donald Trump,” he said.

Boring And Overly Detailed Closing Statement

There was a lot of prosecution evidence and the defense wanted to address it all, something that Los Angeles lawyer, John J. Perlstein, believes was a mistake.

“There is nothing worse than boring a jury by belaboring irrelevant points for hours. The human attention span is short, particularly when addressing technical aspects of the law, which no juror is well versed on,” Perlstein told Newsweek.

“The purpose of closing arguments is to focus on the most relevant points of the trial that sway the jury in a particular direction. Anything more than that is pointless.”