Trump

• Such was the case in the hush money trial involving former President Donald Trump and alleged payments to porn star Stormy Daniels when lawyers for both sides presented their opening statements on April 22, 2024, in New York.
• “Then he covered up that conspiracy by lying in his New York business records, over and over and over again,” Colangelo said.
• Academic psychologists tell us that between 65% and 75% of jurors make up their minds about a case after the opening statement.
• It is vitally important, then, for lawyers on both sides to start their opening arguments with a bang.

The psychology of jurors

• If the idea is to win over the jury by the end of the lawyer’s opening statement, how, in practice, is that done?
• Trial lawyers steeped in the research know that juries respond to a well-considered theory of the case, punctuated by a pithy theme.
• Often the theme is the first sentence out of the lawyer’s mouth, followed by a fuller description of the theory.

• It’s called democracy.” Though prosecutors have tried to put a “sinister” spin on this, Blanche said jurors will learn it’s not a crime.
• In each example, the jury is given enough information to frame the evidence they will hear throughout the trial.
• They set the tone and offer the jury a framework to understand the upcoming months of testimony they are about to hear.

Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• But the nearly two-year investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election dominated headlines – and revealed what has become Trump’s trademark denial of any wrongdoing.
• For Trump, the Russia investigation was the first “ridiculous hoax” and “witch hunt.” Mueller didn’t help matters.
• “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” the special counsel stated.

1. Obstruction of justice

• But Orentlicher wrote that obstruction of justice is “a complicated matter.” According to federal law, obstruction occurs when a person tries to impede or influence a trial, investigation or other official proceeding with threats or corrupt intent.
• But in a March 24, 2019, letter to Congress summarizing Mueller’s findings, then-Attorney General William Barr said he saw insufficient evidence to prove that Trump had obstructed justice.

So it was up to Congress to further a case against Trump on obstruction charges, but then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi declined, arguing that it would be too divisive for the nation and Trump “just wasn’t worth it.”

Read more:
Trump and obstruction of justice: An explainer

2. Why didn’t the full report become public?

• Charles Tiefer is a professor of law at the University of Baltimore and expected that Trump and Barr would do “everything in their power to keep secret the full report and, equally important, the materials underlying the report.” Tiefer was right.
• To keep Mueller’s report private, Barr invoked grand jury secrecy – the rule that attorneys, jurors and others “must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.”

Trump and Barr also claimed executive privilege to further prevent the release of the report. Though it cannot be used to shield evidence of a crime, Tiefer explained, “that’s where Barr’s exoneration of Trump really helped the White House.”

Read more:
How Trump and Barr could stretch claims of executive privilege and grand jury secrecy

3. Alternative facts

• Perhaps the most disappointing finding, they argued, is that there are no known fixes to this problem.
• They found that fact-checking has little impact on changing individual beliefs, and more education only sharpens the divisions.
• And with that, they wrote, “the U.S. continues to inch ever closer to a public square in which consensus perceptions are unavailable and facts are irrelevant.”

  Read more:
  From 'Total exoneration!'

4. Trump’s demand for loyalty

• What sets Trump apart, Ouyang wrote, is his “exceptional emphasis on loyalty.” Trump expects personal loyalty from his staff – especially from his attorney general.
• “Trump values loyalty over other critical qualities like competence and honesty.
• Read more:
  Why does a president demand loyalty from people who work for him?

• In a series of social media posts, the former president personally attacked the daughter of the judge presiding over his criminal trial in New York state.
• In response, Trump has reportedly filed a lawsuit directly against the judge, though the exact claims remain under seal with the court.
• Trump’s attacks on Merchan and his daughter are just the latest in his long effort to undermine the rule of law.

Trump’s playbook

• To do this, Trump has been following a fairly consistent playbook in his attacks on the judges, court staff, witnesses and opposing lawyers involved in his many civil and criminal trials.
• First, he attacks those whom he claims are his political enemies, alleging that the various lawsuits and criminal charges brought against him are politically motivated and a form of election interference.
• This allows him to frame the cases in a politically advantageous way by portraying himself as the victim, seeking the support and sympathy of his electoral base.
• They also violate the ethical standards that all previous presidents have followed when discussing court decisions in public.

Trump’s attacks undermine the rule of law

• In addition to putting the judges overseeing Trump’s many trials between a rock and a hard place, Trump’s attacks on judges, lawyers, court staff and witnesses also undermine the public’s faith in the rule of law and judicial institutions.
• First, the judicial branch depends upon faith in the rule of law to ensure the public respects, and follows, its decisions.
• In turn, people may be more likely to defy judicial decisions and less likely to cooperate with law enforcement.

Trump’s attacks put people at risk

• Another serious consequence of Trump’s personal attacks on judges and their families, lawyers and court personnel is that it puts those people’s safety at risk.
• Marshals Service, which is charged with protecting judges and their staff, the number of credible threats against court personnel is at an all-time high.
• If these attacks continue, I believe they are likely to further undermine the justice system, and American democracy itself.

Paul M. Collins Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• With Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida visiting Washington this week, rumours have circulated that Japan might soon join the AUKUS security pact between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom.
• Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has downplayed the suggestion, indicating this is not something that will happen soon.

Partner on the ‘Pillar II’ level

• For some time now, Japan was talked about as a potential fourth partner in the agreement.
• The Pillar I level of the partnership involves the US transferring nuclear submarine propulsion technology to Australia.
• This level focuses on the sharing of technology related to artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, hypersonic missiles and precision guided munitions.
• Nonetheless, Japan has strong capabilities and critical skills in the areas covered by the Pillar II level of cooperation.

Complications to AUKUS expansion

• This includes ensuring the drafting and implementation of procedural mechanisms to allow technology transfers to take place between the members.
• No one inside AUKUS wants to mess with the dynamics that have enabled such close and trusted ties.
• In addition, there is a reluctance to go beyond three core members of AUKUS until the envisioned technology sharing is proven to work.
• Read more:
  Will the AUKUS deal survive in the event of a Trump presidency?

A delicate balancing act

• This is demonstrated in the trilateral arrangements between them, as well as the quadrilateral ties with India (known as the Quad).
• Japan is also boosting its ties with the Philippines, South Korea and the United Kingdom.
• So, it is a delicate balancing act to encourage Japanese engagement in external security arrangements, while being mindful the country still has a constitution that binds it to a strictly defensive and relatively benign military posture.

John Blaxland is director of the ANU's North America Liaison Office, based in Washington DC, and has been attending the US Navy's Sea Air Space Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.