Michael Cohen, the former personal attorney for President Donald Trump, took the stand in his own defense on Monday and continued his testimony on Tuesday during the criminal trial over whether he broke campaign finance laws by buying the silence of two women who alleged they had extramarital affairs with Mr. Trump.
During cross-examination from Trump lawyer Todd Blanche, Mr. Cohen admitted to lying on multiple occasions, including on bank loan applications and tax forms. He also acknowledged that some of his prior testimony was false but that he believed the lies would reduce his prison sentence.
Despite these admissions, legal experts believe that the prosecution can still rely heavily on business records and testimony from other witnesses to back up Mr. Cohen’s claims. They argue that jurors are familiar with the fact that criminals often lie under oath but that it is ultimately up to them to determine who they believe.
Some have questioned why the jury would even consider Mr. Cohen’s testimony, given his history of lying. However, others point out that it would be impossible for prosecutors to rely solely on witnesses who have never lied in the past. Instead, they must weigh the credibility of each witness and make their case accordingly.
In this trial, much depends on whether the jury is willing to accept Mr. Cohen’s testimony despite his past lies. Legal analyst Jeffrey Hooke told The Epoch Times that he thinks the defense may have made a mistake in drawing out its cross-examination of Mr. Cohen for too long, potentially allowing him to dominate the proceedings.
Ultimately, however, most believe that the outcome of the trial will hinge on whether jurors can be convinced by the extensive use of business records and testimony from other reputable witnesses not known to have lied in the past. This strategy could still lead to a conviction if even one holdout juror can be persuaded to side with the prosecution.