The final stage of the prosecution’s case in the People of the State of New York v. Donald Trump involves calling witness Michael Cohen, who first revealed the hush-money scheme to buy Stormy Daniels’s silence. Despite Cohen’s role in bringing the case to light, the prosecution may not actually need him to establish the elements of the charged criminal offenses. Evidence presented so far by the prosecution has independently proven the crime and corroborated Cohen’s account.
While calling Cohen as a witness could add critical evidence to the prosecution’s case, it also carries the risk of undermining the case due to issues related to Cohen’s personal baggage and credibility. However, insider witnesses testifying against their former bosses is a common tactic in cases involving alleged conspiracies. Testimony from other witnesses in this trial has already established a clear narrative of the scheme involving hush-money payments to silence Trump’s adversaries, including conversations with Trump himself.
One key remaining issue that Cohen could address is whether Trump was aware of the alleged cover-up scheme involving reimbursement checks to Cohen disguised as legal payments. Evidence, such as handwritten notes from former Trump Organization chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, suggests that Trump was likely aware of the scheme. Cohen can provide a detailed insider account of the charged scheme and Trump’s alleged role in it, despite the wealth of evidence already presented in the trial.
Although calling Cohen as a witness carries significant risk for the prosecution, due to his past lies and credibility issues, it may still be necessary for the prosecution to make a compelling case to the jury. In cases where the prosecution has a mountain of independent evidence of guilt, calling a flawed insider like Cohen to provide unique detailed and direct evidence to the jury can sometimes help jurors solidify their understanding of the defendant’s guilt. However, jurors may ultimately reach a guilty verdict based on the evidence presented without necessarily relying heavily on the insider witness’s testimony.
Ultimately, the decision to call Cohen as a witness will be a critical one for the prosecution in the People v. Trump trial. While his testimony could potentially provide additional insight and detail into the alleged conspiracy involving Trump, the prosecution must carefully weigh the risks and potential outcomes of calling a witness with credibility issues. The trial will reveal whether the prosecution’s case can stand on its own with the evidence presented so far or whether Cohen’s testimony will play a crucial role in determining the outcome of the case.
