NEW YORK — As Michael Cohen prepared to take the stand at the civil fraud trial of this past week, two women who shared an intense interest in his testimony slipped into the courtroom.
One was Susan Hoffinger, overseeing the Manhattan district attorney’s separate criminal case against Trump, accusing him of concealing hush-money payments to an adult film actress. The other was Susan Necheles, defending him against those charges.
They were not spectators, but scouts, assessing how Cohen, a star witness, would perform under pressure.
Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times
The outcome was mixed.
On his first day of testimony in the civil case, Cohen made damaging statements about Trump as he calmly described committing crimes on the former president’s behalf. His testimony supported the central contention of the trial, stemming from a lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general, alleging that Trump exaggerated the values of his assets to boost his net worth.
However, Cohen’s second day was more challenging. Under questioning from one of Trump’s lawyers, he seemed flustered and admitted to several lies, including before a judge when he was sentenced to prison for federal crimes in 2018.
The two-day spectacle provided a glimpse of Cohen’s performance in the upcoming criminal trial. It also highlighted the trade-offs for prosecutors in calling a witness like Cohen, a felon with insider knowledge of Trump’s conduct.
Hoffinger, Necheles, and Todd Blanche, another lawyer for Trump attending the civil fraud trial, can use the past week’s testimony to inform how they handle Cohen’s role in the criminal case. Unlike the civil trial decided by a judge, the criminal case will be evaluated by jurors who will scrutinize Cohen’s credibility.
One option for Hoffinger would be extensively preparing Cohen before the trial, scheduled for late March. In the civil case, Cohen took the stand without preparation from the attorney general’s office, which worried him. His lawyer, E. Danya Perry, had to help him object.
Hoffinger is likely to be more hands-on. Her office interviewed Cohen multiple times before Trump’s indictment, verifying his story for months, and prosecutors have gathered corroborating evidence.
In the civil case, Cohen was a peripheral witness who attracted headlines but was not essential to winning. However, he is at the heart of the criminal case.
As Trump’s fixer, he paid hush money to actress . He and Trump discussed the payment to Daniels, and there are records that will support Cohen’s account of the hush-money deals.
Former prosecutors believe these records could strengthen Cohen’s credibility, independent of personal opinions about him and his previous guilty plea.
Cooperating witnesses are often individuals with their own flaws or connections to crimes. Prosecutors typically prepare for potential attacks on their credibility by addressing vulnerabilities and presenting the facts favorably.
In the civil case, Cohen was questioned about his guilty pleas for federal crimes, including those related to the hush money. Trump’s lawyer, Clifford Robert, challenged the validity of Cohen’s pleas, leading to a heated exchange.
The judge denied Robert’s request to dismiss the case, highlighting the evidence against Trump.
Trump left the courtroom, and Cohen felt positive about his time on the stand, stating that it was good for him but bad for Trump.
c.2023 The New York Times Company
