Donald Trump's attorneys were not obligated to present any evidence in his hush money trial, and a former prosecutor said they would have been better off if they hadn't.
The former president's lawyers called one significant witness in attorney Robert Costello, and MSNBC legal analyst Andrew Weissmann argued that they should not have presented any case at all.
"I think the closer that a witness is aligned with the defense, the more I think the jury naturally will think, well, if that person had something really useful to say or exculpatory to say, why didn't you call him?" Weissmann said. "There was a reference in the defense summation yesterday to Don Junior and Eric [Trump] as to – and there was a suggestion by them as to why the state didn't call them. That's the kind of argument that would fall flat because any juror will be thinking, what are you talking about? That's the defendant's children. If they had anything useful, the defense would call them."
Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story.
READ MORE:Revealed: Lawmaker who gave J6ers a Capitol tour targets ex-Capitol Police intel head
"Now, it's worth remembering that the defendant has no obligation to call any witnesses, but the defendant here did put on a case," Weissmann added. "It was a very, very weak case. Mr. Costello, by all accounts, including mine, really blew up in the defendant's face, and so once you've taken on that burden of actually putting on a case, it makes it easier for the jury to think, well, I know that you can put on a case, so it comes in poor form as to say, oh, there are other witnesses out there that could have helped you, because they see if there were witnesses, you have the ability to call them and put them on the stand."
Watch the video below or at this link.
05 29 2024 07 03 17 youtu.be
