Quick Question

The Trump trial is in morning recess. The cross-examination of David Pecker by Trump’s lawyer reveals their defense strategy, which I break down in 5 parts in this article covering today’s testimony so far. https://t.co/cM23xPWdf0

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) April 26, 2024

Basically, their defense is going to look like this: 

1. People brought salacious stories about celebrities and political figures to the Enquirer all the time looking to sell them. 

2. The Enquirer paid for stories all the time. 

3. Sometimes the Enquirer didn't run those stories for a variety of reasons. 

4. Sometimes those celebrities and political figures got the Enquirer to kill the stories by granting access to the Enquirer by doing exclusive interviews. 

5. None of them were prosecuted for it.

What does that have to do with Trump feeding fake stories about his political opponents to Pecker? Or do they put Trump on the stand for rebuttal? And aside from Schwarzenegger, none of those celebrities were running for public office.

I’m not saying this is a bad defense. But on redirect the State could make the point. It maintains the tie between Pecker’s testimony and turning the misdemeanor into a felony.

So Trump’s lawyer isn’t exactly stripping the bark off. It’s a tough job, though. I don’t think they’re “going easy” on Pecker for fear of what else he’ll say, but if they challenge him with supposed evidence that indicts his credibility, sooner or later they have to present that evidence. “Don’t let your mouth write checks your ass can’t cash” is true in jury trials, too. Most of the best evidence in direct opposition to these witnesses is Trump. So the best criminal defense is not a Perry Mason-like presentation of evidence, but a defense that challenges the state’s case and ability to get beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s hard to see them getting there, though.

Now turns out that there was nothing in the document that spoke to the meeting
Merchan: -- gave the impression that the document covered the issue of the meeting. That's improper attempt to refresh recollection, when there wasn't. so it's misleading and ill correct tomorrow.

— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) April 25, 2024

Merhcan to Bove: "Are you missing my point? Because I don't think you're responding to my statement. you gave the impression there was something in the document when there wasn't. so please be more careful." not as bad as "you're losing all credibility," but not great.

— Harry Litman (@harrylitman) April 25, 2024

That was yesterday, after the jury had left the courtroom. But you can be sure the State will come back to that, to poke holes in the defense strategy.

And ‘round and‘round it goes.