Opinion: Trump’s excuses for not testifying
Published: 05-28-2024 3:24 PM |
Charles Huckelbury lives in Henniker
Any first-year law student knows that putting a criminal defendant on the witness stand is usually a losing strategy. No matter how well coached that defendant might be, they will still be at the mercy of professional prosecutors, most of whom have extensive experience in deconstructing whatever story gets pitched to the jury.
And yet, throughout his hush-money trial, Donald Trump kept insisting that he wanted to take the stand and explain his version of events, a proposition that must have given his attorneys nightmares.
They need not have worried. Closing arguments are scheduled for this week without Trump’s testimony. No doubt members of his fan club were disappointed, but over the weekend he put forward three reasons why he opted to decline the opportunity to explain what he did and why.
Excuse number 1: Trump did not trust Judge Merchan to oversee a fair and impartial cross-examination by the prosecutors. To be fair, his skepticism comes after Trump spent the majority of the trial criticizing Judge Merchan’s supervision of the courtroom and verbally attacking him, his family, and even his law clerk. Regardless of the judge’s demonstrated fairness during the trial, Trump might be pardoned for avoiding a bit of retribution should he have taken the stand.
Excuse number 2: Had he testified, Trump would have forfeited his 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. That is, the prosecution would have been expected to introduce factual evidence of Trump’s prior activities and convictions. As long as he remained absent, Judge Merchan was obligated to admonish the jury that they could draw no inferences from the defendant’s silence, per the 5th Amendment’s protection. Trump, however, simultaneously insisted during an interview with ABC that he would not give the other side such an opportunity but was not worried about the prosecution’s attempt to bring up his past misdeeds. He claimed, without example, that he had a “beautiful past,” which clearly did not include his two convictions for defaming E. Jean Carroll and the Access Hollywood tape.
Excuse number 3: Finally, Trump claimed that his testimony was not needed because the prosecution had no case. This was perhaps his most bizarre explanation, given the litany of participants who testified against him and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. Trump and his legal team would have been forced to offer something other than a simple “I didn’t do it.” Again, it would have been a difficult road to travel after all the other evidence had been presented to the jury.
Criminal trials remain part judicial proceedings and part theater, and the outcome is never certain. Anyone remember O. J. Simpson’s trial? The jury will get the case this week, and then we will see whether Mr. Trump’s decision to avoid testifying was the best course of action.
Article continues after...
Yesterday's Most Read Articles






If the past is a precursor for the future, we can expect more complaints and threats no matter what the verdict. Should he want to rethink his decision not to testify, Mr. Trump has more opportunities in the three criminal cases still pending.