E. Jean Carroll trial: Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina’s cross
Trial lawyers are performance artists, very much like stand-up comedians. As I explain in my book The Vanishing Trial, these seemingly disparate professions have much in common. First, it takes years to develop and hone the skills necessary to make people laugh or to effectively try cases. Second, the results of your work are immediate and clear—people either laugh at your jokes or not, and the emotional impact of a summation or cross-examination is felt immediately by all those present in a courtroom. Finally, in both professions, kudos are directly bestowed on you for success, and if you bomb, there is no one else to blame.
With that in mind, from the very outset of the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, I and many of my veteran New York courtroom colleagues have been focusing intently on the performance of someone most of us know: Trump lead lawyer Joe Tacopina. As I reported just before the trial began, given his “bulldog” persona both in and out of the courtroom, and the strict no-nonsense nature of Lewis Kaplan, the judge presiding over the trial, a potential clash was looming. During Tacopina’s pivotal cross-examination Thursday of Carroll, that most unwelcome reality for Trump’s defense has begun to emerge.
There are two compelling reasons a lawyer needs to avoid such clashes. First, when judges interrupt a cross-examination, it interferes with the flow of the lawyer’s questions. Second, whether it is the case or not, jurors will automatically assume that you are doing something you should not be doing if the neutral judge is intervening. Both of these outcomes seriously limit a lawyer’s effectiveness and credibility.
The cross of Carroll was inherently loaded with land mines. First, she is an elderly woman whose direct testimony over the past two days on direct seems to have been effective. Her lawyer Mike Ferrara not only took her and the jury through the painful details of the assault itself, but very effectively had her address potential weaknesses in her story and explain them directly. In what trial lawyers call “bringing it out on direct,” you remove any surprise when the issue is raised on cross, provide in advance your best explanation, and eliminate the belief that you were too afraid to address the subject. In Carroll’s direct examination, rational reasons were provided for a host of potential matters that might impeach her credibility, including the very long time interval between the event itself and when she made any public statements about it, her personal dislike of the former president, and her ability to make money out of the incident.
Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementTacopina was also boxed in by the need to show that an allegation made by a credible person was—as he described it in his opening statement—“unbelievable.” While in an organized crime case, for instance, it may be necessary and appropriate to bludgeon a cooperating former mob member into admitting that at least part of his testimony is questionable, that tactic is hardly appropriate in this case. On Thursday, Tacopina’s repeated attempts to get Carroll to give in to this approach were unsuccessful.
Recently in Jurisprudence
- Sure Sounds Like the Supreme Court Is About to Give Trump a Big Win!
- A Supreme Court Justice Gave Us Alarming New Evidence That He’s Living in MAGA World
- Why David Pecker’s Testimony Was So Credible
- We’ve Been Entertaining an Illusion About the Supreme Court. It’s Finally Been Shattered.
So, it came as no surprise that Kaplan periodically intervened in the cross-examination, calling Tacopina’s questions repetitive and argumentative. Judge Kaplan’s frustration seemed to increase as the day wore on. “We’ve been up and down the mountain. Move on.” New York Times reporters in the courtroom noticed that just before the midday break, the “typically attentive jury seemed to be losing steam.” Late in the afternoon, when Tacopina asked Carroll to provide details about the dress she wore the day of the alleged assault, Kaplan immediately interjected and excused the jury for the day. Not exactly the impression Team Trump wanted the jury to be left with on the way home.
We still have a long way to go. Tacopina may adjust his approach enough to avoid further clashes with the court—or things may get even worse. Despite the lack of progress seemingly made by Team Trump to date, the jury might still render a verdict in their favor, given the basic “he said, she said” nature of the case. What can be said at this juncture, however, is that things are not going well for the former president and that, as expected, the Carroll-Trump trial is great theater.
Tweet Share Share Comment(责任编辑:资讯)
-
Sinkhole swallows up car, injuring 2 in Seoul
A sinkhole has swallowed up a car on a road in Seoul's Seodaemun-gu, on Thursday. (Yonhap)A sin ...[详细] -
秋意浓、蟹肥美,金秋十月是吃大闸蟹的好季节。虽然大闸蟹不具有青岛海鲜的“老滋味”,但是近年来,大闸蟹以鲜香肥美的味道异军突起,引得许多岛城市民购买品尝。近日,记者走访岛城众多海 ...[详细]
-
招行2016年第三季度:净利润521.42亿同比上升7.51%
2016年1-9月本集团业绩摘要 (单位:人民币)l 营业净收入1,612.12亿元,同比增长2.93%(A股:营业收入1,602.91亿元,同比增加2.60%)l 归属于本行股东净利润人民币521. ...[详细] -
雅安日报/北纬网讯近日,记者从市财政局获悉,截至9月30日,我市已争取到上级财政交通专项补助资金51406.24万元。专项资金中,28311万元将用于国道108线成雅快速通道雅安段、省道105线雅安至 ...[详细]
-
Apple Watch bands: 5 favorites to consider as Apple Watch 10 looms
It's almost new Apple Watch season, which means it's potentially almost time for you to pick out whi ...[详细] -
自2013年首次出口意大利以来,海尔高端智能空调已出口至法国、巴基斯坦、印度等海外24个国家,逐渐成为国际用户的主流产品选择。从10月15日召开的第120届广交会上获取的最新数据显示,2016年上半年 ...[详细]
-
护绿促兴、用绿增效,常平“三大工程”积极构建绿美格局_南方+_南方plus绿水青山就是金山银山。今年以来,常平紧紧围绕“山、水、城、村”,重点推进森林质量精准提升、森林公园品质提升、蓝绿通道连通提升“ ...[详细]
-
鍗¤惃甯濆啺绠卞湪寮犲鍙嬫紨鍞变細澶栧睍鍑猴紝璁蹭簡1涓吇椴滅殑绉樺瘑
銆€銆€10鏈?1鏃ユ櫄锛屽湪鍖椾含涔愯浣撹偛鐢熸€佷腑蹇冿紝姝岀寮犲鍙嬬殑缁忓吀寮€鍞卞嬀璧蜂簡涓€涓椂浠g殑鍥炲繂銆傚悓鏃讹紝鍗¤惃甯?A CLASSIC TOUR 瀛﹀弸-缁忓吀涓栫晫宸 ...[详细] -
[From the Scene] How ‘world’s first oil town’ is wrestling to become ‘green'
City of Baku, Azerbaijan (Getty Imgage)BAKU, Azerbaijan -- Driving just a few miles from the venue o ...[详细] -
增城迟菜心花样百变!“探菜图”带你寻找高品质菜心_南方+_南方plus惹味金钩赌迟菜心——将迟菜心放入烧得极热的砂煲中,配以虾干、腊味以及酱汁爆香,可谓香气勾魂。麒麟蒸迟菜心——火腿与迟菜心一同蒸制, ...[详细]