Donald Trump likely WILL NOT testify in his trials because his lawyers will “talk him out of it,” but the decision will be made “at the last minute,” top defense lawyers say

Top defense lawyers expect Donald Trump will ultimately not testify in his upcoming criminal trials, and 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 under cross-examination before jurors and fight with prosecutors.

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

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

Former US President Donald Trump is seen in a mugshot released by the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia

But experts said it may not be necessary for him to testify to win and that a decision should not be made until prosecutors rest their case in each trial.

Harvard law 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 talk him out of it. “.

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

Prof. Dershowitz added: “You don’t have to make the decision before the prosecution completes its case.” He (Trump) doesn’t have to make that decision until the last minute.

“I would advise him against it in general, but I might ultimately advise halfway through the process based on the strength and nature of the government’s argument.”

He said the most likely trial in which Trump would take the stand was the secret documents case in Florida, rather than the election interference case in Georgia or the January 6 case in Washington DC

That’s because it’s a narrower legal question and the defense could seek a ruling from the judge that limits the scope of what the prosecution could ask Trump on cross-examination.

“It’s a narrow case that really just involves a problem with the law, and the judge may well limit cross-examination,” Prof. Dershowitz said.

“If it seems like the whole case is based on whether or not he declassified the secrecy, at that point he might be advised to testify and say, yes, I declassified the secrecy, if he can prove it. “

Alan Dershowitz, then President Donald Trump’s attorney, answers a question during Trump’s Senate impeachment trial at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2020

A courtroom sketch of former US President Donald Trump taking an oath during his hearing in Washington DC on charges that he orchestrated a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election

Prof. Dershowitz was part of the “dream team” of defense lawyers who represented OJ Simpson.

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

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

Prof Dershowitz said it was “really very difficult to question the judgments of the lawyers in the Trump cases”.

“You have to do it based on the reality of the moment.” You will persevere and make that decision. So do it tentatively before the case comes and then they will finalize it after the case comes before the government.”

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

Tim Parlatore, who represented Trump in the classified documents case in Florida until earlier this year, said taking the stand, as in any case, was “extremely risky.”

He told Dailymail.com: “I always tell any client, not specifically this client, that it is extremely risky.”

But in the end it would have to be Trump himself who decides, he said.

“The two things lawyers don’t decide are whether to plead guilty and whether to testify.” I always explain, “That’s your decision, not mine.” I make recommendations, but they have to make the decision. We discuss the advantages, disadvantages and risks.

“If they’re still undecided, I do an exercise and tell them, ‘You’re going to be really mad at me and want to hit me.’

“Generally after two minutes they would stop me and say, ‘That’s a terrible idea.’”

Defense attorney Tim Parlatore, who previously represented Donald Trump in the classified documents case

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

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

Parlatore also said that the decision on the statement should only be made towards the end of the process.

“Then do you make a decision about how things are going and is it worth the risk?” “If you’ve picked apart the prosecution witnesses, that’s not a problem,” he said.

He said that if prosecutors in the Georgia voter fraud case cannot produce a witness who claims Trump knows there was no fraud, then there is no need for him to take the stand and refute anything.

“When it comes to Trump, the key thing is whether he truly believed there was fraud in the election.” “The only issue is his state of mind,” he said.

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

He said that if the trials took place before the election, an “additional element of political image” had to be taken into account in the testimony.

However, from a litigator’s perspective, this has no bearing on the decision and he will only make his final recommendation at an advanced stage of the proceedings.

“The best trial lawyers are the ones who observe the battlefield,” he said. “See how the situation changes and respond to the actual conditions on the ground rather than sticking to a plan they wrote beforehand.”