The following three subjects were examined during the three days of testimony and cross-examination that Michael Cohen provided during the criminal trial of former President Donald Trump: sex, money, and power. Trump is currently under investigation for allegedly concealing a hush-money payment that was made to a woman who claimed to have had a sexual encounter with him. Cohen, a man who was previously associated with Trump and referred to as his “fixer,” claims that he implemented the scheme at Trump’s direction.
Both David E. Clementson, a scholar of political communication at the University of Georgia and an authority on political deception, and John E. Jones III, a retired federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and the current president of Dickinson College, were interviewed by the publication. The men deliberated on the jury’s prospective perception of Trump (Clementson suggests that Trump’s closed eyes could be problematic) and whether Trump’s defense undermined the credibility of Cohen, a convicted liar. Jones asserts that cross-examination is “not scoring as effectively as it could.”
How do you think the jury views Trump?
P. E. David Clementson: In my capacity as a researcher, I have conducted experiments to ascertain the influence of a politician’s demeanor. The recurring occurrence of Trump maintaining an eye-closed position within the courtroom is intriguing to me. This singular, uncomplicated nonverbal cue has the potential to significantly impact both the trial and the jury.
As the saying says, “One cannot communicate.” Consider an aircraft passenger who averts his gaze upon observing the flight attendant approaching from the opposite side of the aisle. He expresses himself extensively, including the statement, “Do not engage in conversation with me,” despite his lack of action or speech. Please refrain from causing me any inconvenience. It is unnecessary for me to consume a beverage. I have no desire for peanuts.
Trump’s counsel may be employing a strategy by instructing him to recline with his eyes closed. Conversely, it is probable that his nonverbal response would be one of derision, at least during the course of the event. Furthermore, this could have an adverse effect and render you appear guilty.
Nevertheless, refraining from making eye contact and averting one’s gaze is the most common method by which others will perceive one as dishonest, which could be both perilous and catastrophic. This discovery is universal, encompassing a wide range of demographic groups, languages, and cultures. It is probable that jurors will conclude that Trump is being dishonest if they observe him averting his gaze.
In the event that the jury perceives him to be speaking with his eyes closed, as the individual on the aircraft did, this scenario could potentially unfold if the jury determines that his derision of the proceedings is justified. However, there may be an exception to the rule that eye contact is mandatory for appearing honest.
John E. Jones III: Based on the information I have reviewed, Trump’s propensity to close his eyes is a self-control mechanism that is intended to prevent him from acting out. It is important to mention that E. Jean Carroll consistently demonstrated disruptive behavior during the trial. I have concluded that jurors harbor animosity toward parties who disregard the proceedings after conversing with numerous jurors following trials and case verdicts. They experience significant distress as a result. Generally, they regard the judge as a confidante and a keeper. The jurors are incensed when a visitor places their foot on the judge. The court’s organizational infrastructure is the reason why the judge is regarded as an ally.
Michael Cohen delivered critical testimony this week. It is evident that he has previously admitted to lying under oath. How should the public and jury evaluate his testimony?
Clementson contends that Cohen is the prosecution’s most credible witness; nevertheless, he is easily discredited. The credibility of a speaker is substantially influenced by the degree to which an audience perceives that the speaker is expressing their own perspective, as demonstrated by social psychology and communication research. A speaker who genuinely conveys their own opinions is perceived as possessing integrity, impartiality, sincerity, and persuasiveness.
Nevertheless, if the audience believes that he is susceptible to external pressures or circumstances that dictate his behavior, he loses his credibility as a persuasive and honest speaker. Cohen illustrates this external pressure by exercising caution in his speech and conduct. According to his own testimony, he asserted that he was Trump’s staunchest advocate in the past and that he had acted and spoken in accordance with his instructions. Subsequently, he betrayed Trump, which is why even jurors who are opposed to Trump are likely to harbor suspicions regarding a devastated lover who was once infatuated with him.
Donald Trump, the former president, is scheduled to appear in Manhattan Criminal Court on May 16, 2024, in New York, as he continues his prosecution on charges of allegedly concealing hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.
Jones: [T] I am of the opinion that the philosophical question is whether or not an individual who consistently fabricates information regarding a variety of subjects can undergo a metaphorical transformation and begin to speak the truth. The jury is required to address this issue.
The prosecution’s legal challenge and trial in this case is the ability to corroborate Cohen’s statements. As has been extensively reported, they effectively corroborated Cohen’s statement. The primary objective of the cross-examination that has been ongoing for the past few days is to establish that he harbors animosity toward Donald Trump, in addition to demonstrating that he is a liar and that liars persist in their deceptions. Furthermore, David Clementson contends that his testimony is compromised by his status as a reviled partner.
I believe that the cross-examination is not attaining its full potential for success as a result of its somewhat meandering nature.
At this juncture, I am of the opinion that the most likely outcome of this case is either a divided jury or a conviction with a partial delay, based on the circumstances that have been observed, particularly if Cohen is the final prosecution witness. Without the defense revealing a rabbit from beneath the headdress.
What implications does the probability that Trump will not provide testimony have for the credibility of the proceedings in this courtroom, as well as for the jury and the public?
Jones: It suggests that a substantial amount of uncontested testimony has been presented. Additionally, the judge is required to provide the jury with an instruction that the prosecution is responsible for the burden, which is consistent, and that the defendant is not obligated to provide a statement in court. The judge places a significant emphasis on this point in the instructions that are given both before and after the trial.
In my capacity as a trial judge, I would actively encourage the jury to comply with my directives concerning the defendant’s right to silence. This is an essential aspect of our judicial system, and it is imperative that they understand this, particularly the fact that the prosecution is responsible for proving the case and is not allowed to use this as an argument against a particular defendant. I am of the opinion that the preponderance of jurors operate under this presumption.
Nevertheless, the jurors would likely be intrigued by Trump’s account of the events, given the nature of human inquiry. This decision is extremely difficult for the defense to make on each occasion. It is similar to a cost-benefit analysis in that it compares the benefits and drawbacks of having the defendant testify. The disadvantage is substantial in this instance.
Clementson asserts that Trump is incapable of offering testimony. I wholeheartedly concur. He is an excessively vaporous cannon. With nothing to gain and everything to lose. He was capable of refuting prior statements or further incriminating himself.
