Donald Trump probably WON’T testify in his trials because his legal team will ‘talk him out of it’ but the decision will be made at the ‘LAST MINUTE’ say top defense lawyers

Top lawyers predict that Donald Trump will ultimately not testify in his upcoming criminal trials and that his legal team will convince him that silence is the better strategy.

The former president said this week that he “absolutely” plans to take the stand to battle prosecutors during cross-examination before jurors.

He faces four trials in Georgia, Washington DC, Florida and New York, on charges of alleged election interference, January 6, classified documents and a payment to porn star Stormy Daniels.

The former president told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday: “Oh yeah, absolutely. I would. I look forward to testifying. I will testify at the trial.”

But experts said it may not be necessary for him to testify to win, and that a decision should only be made after the prosecutor in each trial rests his case.

Harvard professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who successfully defended Mr Trump in his first Senate impeachment trial in 2020, told Dailymail.com: “My prediction is that he won’t testify, I think his lawyers will kick him out will talk. .

“If I were his lawyer, I would encourage him not to testify. Not because of what he would say, but because of what he is asked during cross-examination. They could go through everything he’s ever said and question his credibility that way. ‘

Prof Dershowitz added that ‘you don’t have to make the decision before the prosecutor closes his case. He (Trump) doesn’t have to make that decision until the last minute.

“Generally speaking, I would advise him not to do this, but ultimately I might advise him in the middle of the process based on the strength and nature of the government’s case.”

He said the most likely trial for Trump to take his stand was the classified documents case in Florida, not the election interference case in Georgia, or the January 6 case in Washington DC.

That’s because it rests on a narrower legal issue and the defense could obtain a ruling from the judge that limits the scope of what the prosecutor could ask Trump during cross-examination.

“It’s a limited case of essentially one problem with the law and the judge could well limit the cross-examination,” Prof. Dershowitz said.

“If it appears that the entire case is based on whether or not he released the confidentiality, at that point he may be advised to testify and say, yes, I released the confidentiality, if he can build.’

Prof Dershowitz was part of the ‘dream team’ of lawyers who represented OJ Simpson.

He also successfully appealed Claus von Bulow’s case, overturning the socialite’s conviction for the attempted murder of his heiress wife.

The lawyer’s book on the case was turned into the 1990 film Reversal of Fortune, for which Jeremy Irons won the Oscar for Best Actor.

Professor Dershowitz said it was “really, really difficult to challenge lawyers’ judgments” in the Trump cases.

‘You have to do it based on the reality of the situation at that moment. They will hold on and make that decision. So make it for now before the case and then they will finalize it after the government’s case.”

Asked if he thought Trump would listen to his lawyers’ advice, he replied: “Who knows.”

Tim Parlatore, who until earlier this year represented Trump in the Florida secret documents case, said it would be an “extreme risk” to take a stand in any case.

He told Dailymail.com: ‘With any client, not specifically this client, I always tell them it’s extremely risky.’

But ultimately it should be Trump himself who decides, he said.

“The two things that lawyers don’t decide are whether to plead guilty and whether to testify. I always explain, “This is your choice, not mine.” I give recommendations, but they have to make the decision. We discuss the pros, cons and risks.

‘If they still can’t figure it out, I do an exercise and say to them, “You’re really getting annoyed with me and want to punch me.”

“They generally interrupt me after two minutes and say, ‘This is a terrible idea.’

He said there was a big difference between the concept and reality of cross-examination.

“Specifically for someone like him (Trump), who is used to expressing his opinion and talking through an interviewer, cross-examination is very, very different,” he said. “There are very, very few cases where it makes sense.”

Parlatore also said the decision on whether to take the stand should not be made until late in the process.

“Then make a decision about how it’s going to go and is it worth the risk? “If you separated the prosecution witnesses, that’s not a problem,” he said.

He said if the prosecutor in the Georgia election fraud case couldn’t present a witness who said Trump knew there was no fraud, he didn’t have to take a stand and refute anything.

“When it comes to Trump, the most important factor here is whether he actually believed there was fraud in the election. The only problem is his state of mind,” he said.

“If you don’t have a government witness who says he knew (there was no fraud), then you don’t have to call him. At that point, there is no reason to send the case to a jury.”

He said if the trials were to take place before the election, there would be an “additional element of political image” to take into account in whether to testify.

But from a trial attorney’s perspective, that would not affect the decision, and they will make their final recommendation at an advanced stage of the trial.

“The best trial lawyers are the ones who keep an eye on the battlefield,” he said. “See how the situation changes and respond to the actual conditions on the ground, rather than being married to a plan they previously wrote.”