Defendants in criminal cases make an unnecessary error when they take it upon themselves to "prove" their innocence. They have no such obligation.

[excalibur]

And why should Trump or any defendant put themselves in such a position? Particularly where this case matters, and they would, and you all know this is true, would attempt a perjury trap, which is quite easy to do.

Neither was the clown-show that the NY trial has been.

A payment made nearly 8 years ago, supposedly reflected in an inaccurate fashion in company records when personal funds were used, and where the criminal "intent" supposedly flows from the testimony of a serial perjurer who admits he has lied under oath when his personal interests require it. Why would Trump dignify it with any reply?

Defendants in criminal cases make an unnecessary error when they take it upon themselves to "prove" their innocence. They have no such obligation.

What is on trial in NY is not Trump, but Bragg's case.

It is a pathetic exercise in unethical and unprofessional abuses of prosecutorial power by someone who ran a campaign based on a promise to use those powers in abusive unethical and unprofessional ways.

So Bragg has made good. So what? Trump only lends it credibility by investing himself in refuting garbage.

If convicted he'll win on appeal.

By not participating he makes it clear the entire exercise is what he's said from the start -- and fair minded Dem. partisans like Elie Honig have expressly acknowledged -- that no one other that Donald Trump would be subjected to such a farce. https://x.com/BradMossEsq/st/BradMossEsq/status/1792935929994264894[/b. (emphasis added)]​

 

[Donald H]

If Trump is convicted, he will win an appeal if he wins the presidency. And will lose the appeal if Biden wins.

 

[whitehall]

Technically the burden of proof is on the prosecution but the defense attorney has an obligation to prove his client innocent.

 

[1srelluc]

That is unless the IRS has you indicted.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Technically the burden of proof is on the prosecution but the defense attorney has an obligation to prove his client innocent.

I don't know any criminal defense attorneys that ever tried to prove a client innocent. Nor have I ever heard of one. In some cases a defense attorney will not put on a defense at all. The closing argument is, the prosecution didn't prove their case. If you remember the famous line about OJs glove. "If the glove won't fit. You must acquit." The prosecution didn't prove their case.