Let me give another example of something done on purpose that will backfire on the defense: the list of ten reasons for doubt. It's snappy, it's quick, it probably came from Trump himself -- but all they've done is give the prosecution ten memorable items to easily shoot down.
The prosecution is not going to be able to shoot the GLOAT reference down.
Yeah, even in the unlikely event that Trump does get acquitted, it won’t be because of that really dumb “GLOAT” line. Speaking as a defense attorney - I.e. someone who actually does this for a living - the defense’s closing argument was pretty unimpressive. It wasn’t awful, but it was a wasted opportunity and is unlikely to change anyone’s mind. The curative instruction could definitely backfire on the defense though. Screwing up your closing statement badly enough that the judge needs to issue curative instructions is not a good ending note.
GLOAT is the kind of cute thing that probably won't stick for more than five seconds because of how hyperbolic it is. A real pound-the-table move.
Ehhh, zingers have their place in closing, but they have to articulate and encapsulate a feeling that is already there. There are plenty of things you can say about Cohen and he’s clearly a sleazy lowlife crook, but he came across as very forthright and truthful in his testimony. He didn’t shy away from fully acknowledging his own misdeeds either. As such, I don’t think the “Michael Cohen is a liar; you can’t trust his testimony” attack will stick even though I suspect most of the jurors consider him a sleazy crook who’d steal from anybody if given half a chance (although obviously none of us knows).
If Cohen got caught lying to the jurors or had tried to minimize his own misconduct, then I think that might be more effective. As it stands though, I don’t think it speaks to an underlying truth about how Cohen’s testimony came across.
