Now that the parties have each given their opening statements in the Stormy Daniels hush money trial, we finally have the answer to the head-scratchingIn today’s opening remarks, Trump attorney Todd Blanche naturally reminded the jurors of the heavy burden prosecutors have in proving their case and assured the panel his client had not committed any crimes.
There are two problems lurking in these statements. First, defense lawyers—always reliant on the prosecutor’s heavy evidentiary burden requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt—typically stay away from the word “innocent,” because a finding of innocence requires some factual basis. A “not guilty” verdict, on the other hand, would be based only on the government’s failure to meet its burden of proof—the very significant barrier Blanche emphasized earlier in his remarks.
An even greater potential problem is that at the end of the case, the judge will explain to the jury that if the government met its burden of proof, the conduct at issueIt all comes down to criminal intent, and without Mr. Trump being able to testify as to his state of mind—given his lack of personal control and the doors that his taking the witness stand would open to other, otherwise inadmissible Trumpian misconduct—there is a much steeper hill for the defense to climb.
The way the prosecution should use this new piece of evidence? To make a simple argument. We can all look back in time and regret many things we have done. When it came to the Stormy Daniels payoff, Davidson surely had that kind of moment of self-reflection. Soon, the jury will face a similar fork—to uphold the rule of law, and show that no one, no matter how famous or powerful, is above it.