To maintain favor with Donald Trump and be considered one of his trusted lawyers, it is crucial to be perceived as fiercely advocating for his interests, even if these actions ultimately work against his own agenda.
In Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial, there have been multiple contempt hearings. Instead of acknowledging that his client had crossed a line, attorney Todd Blanche chose to persist with a defense that claimed the client did nothing wrong and would likely do it again. Blanche argued that there was a constitutional right to attack jurors and witnesses, perhaps due to confusion regarding the boundaries set by Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order. As a result, Trump has been found in violation of the order on numerous occasions, with the threat of imprisonment looming.
After Stormy Daniels’ testimony on Tuesday, where she provided explicit details about an alleged sexual encounter with the former president in a hotel room, it was expected that Trump’s defense team would attempt to discredit her. Susan Necheles, who had previously played a subordinate role compared to her male colleagues, was assigned with the task of undermining Daniels’ credibility.
According to an article by Shan Wu on The Daily Beast, Necheles, similar to Blanche who was a well-regarded criminal defense attorney before joining Trump’s legal team, made a mistake right from the start of the cross-examination.
According to Wu, the female co-counsel decided to outshine her two male counterparts by beginning her examination with a question that lacked substance. This question implied that Daniels had rehearsed her testimony. Necheles, the female co-counsel, pressed Daniels to confess that she had undergone a number of intense preparation sessions, which involved harsh mock cross-examinations. Necheles emphasized the word “brutal” and her tone was described as pointed and adversarial.
Wu argued that starting in such a manner is frankly a foolish approach. He emphasized that jurors are explicitly instructed by judges that it is appropriate to prepare witnesses, and that lawyers would not be fulfilling their duties if they simply put witnesses on the stand without any prior preparation. To simplify matters, Necheles should have focused on establishing the fact that Daniels is unaware of whether Trump falsified business records to conceal the $130,000 hush payment she received. Instead of aggressively targeting Daniels, who jurors may sympathize with, the defense could have focused on arguing that, from a legal standpoint, she was irrelevant.
“In a cautionary note, Wu pointed out that Necheles and her co-counsel may be making a grave mistake if they choose to perform and adopt Trump’s aggressive persona for their client. While bullying tactics may be effective in some situations, they usually do not fare well in a courtroom setting.”
During Daniels’ return to the stand on Thursday, Trump’s legal counsel will have a chance to adopt a more gentle approach. According to Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University, if they choose to maintain the same level of aggression as before, it is probable that the strategy will “backfire.”
“I believe it is counterproductive, especially when they target Stormy Daniels to protect Trump’s image… publicly, not in the eyes of the jurors,” Goodman remarked. If Trump’s legal team excessively pursues Daniels as their client would prefer, it may result in a prolonged and humiliating spectacle before the actual decision-makers – the twelve jurors who hold significance.”
According to Goodman, the possibility of the woman testifying in greater detail about why she felt uncomfortable could have a negative impact on the accused. He suggests that as the testimony progresses, it may reveal a non-consensual sexual encounter, which could potentially sway the jurors against him.
According to former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, it would not benefit the defense to continue questioning Daniels on the stand. Honig believes that Daniels’ testimony, which includes her admission of “hating Trump,” could actually work in favor of the defense. Instead of trying to find contradictions in Daniels’ account, Honig suggests that the defense should be grateful for what they have and avoid revealing any more potentially damaging details. This is particularly important if the defense plans to appeal on the grounds that these details were prejudicial and should not have been presented in court.
“Let the jury know about her bias and animosity towards Trump, and her strong desire to see him imprisoned,” Honig advised CNN. “But there’s no need to delve into the details of that hotel room incident. It’s best to avoid it altogether.”
