Trump's defense team surprised the court by calling an unexpected new witness. The prosecution concluded its case with Michael Cohen testifying for the third day, Daily Mail reported.

Manhattan's state court became the focal point of national attention as former U.S. President Donald Trump's legal team, and the prosecution clashed over his purported involvement in hush money payments.

Central to the trial is Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who has directly linked Trump to the payments intended to silence porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election campaign.

Michael Cohen, a pivotal figure in the unfolding drama, has testified that he arranged the payments at Trump's behest.

However, his credibility came under heavy scrutiny due to past misdeeds, including lying and embezzling $60,000 from the Trump Organization, not to mention his involvement in an unsuccessful attempt to manipulate online polls.

Judge and Lawyers Tangle Over Courtroom Decorum and Evidence

In response, Trump's defense suggested that Cohen's testimony might be driven by personal gains linked to his public presence. Robert Costello, another one of Trump's lawyers, pointedly accused Cohen of dishonesty, intensifying the debates over Cohen's reliability as a witness.

Judge Juan Merchan struggled to maintain order, directing stern warnings toward Costello following his contentious comportment in court. On one such occasion, he said, "Sir, your conduct is contemptuous right now. I'm putting you on notice that your conduct is contemptuous," exemplifying the high tensions present during the proceedings.

Trump's legal team hinted that the former president might testify, a move fraught with legal risks. This statement sparked speculation amidst an already electric atmosphere in the courtroom.

The Strategic Legal Battle Over the Admissibility of Evidence

The trial also concentrated on procedural skirmishes, particularly about the admissibility of evidence. Both sides contended fiercely over whether inputs from Bradley Smith, a former FEC chairman, could be considered authoritative, especially concerning campaign finance regulations.

Throughout the proceedings, the immediate legal questions and broader aspects of Trump's life and career became subjects of discussion. References to Trump’s celebrity status, his family, and ongoing external events paralleling the courtroom saga were constant reminders of his entrenched position in public life.

Meanwhile, outside the courtroom, the trial stirred diverse reactions from the public, with interest and opinions sharply divided. Trump's pervasive media influence was unmistakable, reaching far beyond the immediate legal confines.

Trump's Possible Testimony and Public Reactions

Incidental occurrences such as interactions with judiciary members and even comments about the courtroom temperature were reported inside the courtroom, underscoring the minutiae that captured public and media attention.

Trump commented on the day's events, particularly praising his lawyer, Robert Costello, for his efforts despite the controversies. "You saw what happened to a highly respected lawyer today, Bob Costello. Wow. I've never seen anything like that. Highly respected," Trump stated, reflecting his engagement with the trial's progression.

Not just legal but also public opinion battles seemed to be at stake, as Steven Cheung, Trump's campaign communications director, lambasted a controversial movie about Trump, calling it "pure fiction which sensationalizes lies that have been long debunked."

Legal Experts Weigh In on the Trial's Complexities

As the trial continues, legal experts have closely analyzed every development, often advising caution regarding Trump's potential testimony.

The complexities of the legal arguments, especially over Cohen's credibility, were highlighted when Judge Merchan skeptically remarked to Trump's attorney, Todd Blanche, "You think [Cohen's] going to fool 12 New Yorkers?"

The defense team remained confident nonetheless, with Alina Habba, one of Trump's lawyers, asserting their effectiveness in handling Cohen’s cross-examination: "We did a pretty good job."

In summary, the trial has intricately woven together questions of legal evidence, witness credibility, and the overarching narrative of political influence, all while being closely watched by both national and international observers. As it progresses, the outcomes of this high-stakes legal battle are awaited with bated breath.