As former President Donald Trump’s business records trial continues in New York, renowned attorney Alan Dershowitz has proposed an intriguing legal strategy. Speaking on his podcast Wednesday, Dershowitz suggested a potential maneuver that Trump’s legal team could use against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg as the cross-examination of former lawyer Michael Cohen resumed.

Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records and has pleaded not guilty. Michael Cohen, the prosecution’s key witness, plays a crucial role in their case, and his credibility is under intense scrutiny. Dershowitz emphasized the importance of the next phase following Cohen’s testimony: the defense’s chance to present its own witnesses.

Dershowitz explored the potential impact of a “missing witness instruction,” which could be a pivotal move in the trial. He elaborated on the strategic implications of the prosecution’s decision not to call former Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg to the stand. “The reason the government does not want to call him seems obvious, that if he testified, he would testify against Cohen, he would not corroborate, he would undercut Cohen and that’s not a good reason,” Dershowitz said.

Weisselberg, a key figure in the Trump Organization, served as its Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and has been closely associated with Donald Trump and the Trump family for decades, overseeing financial operations within the organization. His role made him a significant figure in various investigations related to Trump’s business practices, particularly those concerning financial discrepancies and potential legal violations.

Dershowitz also emphasized the standard judicial procedure that follows the prosecution’s presentation.: “Our case is in. At that point, a number of things happen. Number one, the defendant will make a motion to acquit, a motion to dismiss, a motion that essentially says, ‘Look, we’ve heard the prosecution’s case, and there’s not enough to go to the jury.’ The state has not established all the elements of the crime. And that motion is routinely denied by most judges.”

“When you think about all the days of testimony that have gone by and we still don’t know essentially what the crime is,” Dershowitz continued. “We know that it has something to do with him or somebody on his behalf noting the $130,000 payments as legal expenses rather than as money paid for a non-disclosure agreement of hush money. Nobody in history has ever disclosed the payment of hush money, so this would be the first time in the history of the world anybody was ever prosecuted for failure to disclose the payment of hush money.”

Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.