Gerald Lefcourt, another defense lawyer in brand-new York, said, “The obvious strategy is usually to blame Gates for everything along with argue his credibility which clearly took a big hit on cross.”
“If Manafort testifies he shifts the jury’s attention through Gates’ credibility to his own credibility,” Lefcourt said. “in which’s a real problem, because the person who’s got the most to gain by fabricating is usually the defendant.”
Brennan agreed with in which, saying in which Manafort risked a lot by taking the witness stand, even if he thought he might be able to sway the jury to believe his type of events.
Brennan noted in which federal prosecutors have access to files about a defendant through a raft of government agencies, including the FBI, IRS along with Securities along with Exchange Commission, all of which can be used to undercut in which defendant’s testimony during cross-examination.
As a result, he said, for most criminal defendants in federal trials “the item’s a losing game” to take the witness stand “unless you have a actually Great story to tell.”
Manafort’s legal team, however, is usually leaving unrebutted by any witnesses the stack of financial documents entered into evidence by prosecutors against Manafort.
Prosecutors argue those records are damning evidence of Manafort hiding money earned overseas through consulting for a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine along with then duping banks into giving him loans when in which income stream ran dry.
For Manafort’s lawyers, “The risk is usually in which you don’t have any answers to the statements in which the prosecutors are going to make” in closing arguments, Brennan said.
yet “the defense strategy is usually to ignore the documents” along with “be focused on Gates” in closing arguments to jurors, Brennan said.
“I’d stand up there in front of them along with say, ‘Why does Manafort even have to be here?'” Brennan said.