Criminal intent has been likened to the state of one’s digestion. You can feel it, you can taste it, you can even smell it. It is gathered from acts, declarations and conduct. The jury must use their God-given common sense. What does the experience of their daily lives tell them about what happened?

Donald Trump is charged in New York with 34 counts of falsification of business records related to “hush money” payments to Stormy Daniels. The verdict in the criminal case will turn on the credibility of the star witness for the prosecution, Michael Cohen. If the jury believes him, game over. Trump will be convicted.

If the jury disbelieves Cohen, however, or believe that Cohen and Trump are both liars, the game is also over — Trump will most likely be acquitted and score a major political victory. Cohen took the stand on Monday. Court observers agree that so far he has done well on direct examination, but he has yet to be tested in what is expected to be a withering cross examination.

Cross examination has rightfully been called an art. It is the drama of the law. Cross may be used constructively, serving to flush out more facts to disclose shades and nuances in the narrative favorable to the defendant that did not come out on direct. Or it can be used destructively, to attack credibility, demolish the witness, show he is not telling the truth. In the case of Cohen, all expect a withering staccato-like series of questions that will unmask him as a liar, a disgruntled former employee biased against Trump, coming to court out of........

© The Hill