'Not sure what the strategy is': Tactics of Trump legal team leave legal analyst confused

Former Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen appeared on the stand for the first time in the hush money case Monday — and at least one legal analyst was shocked by some of the tactics being used by Trump's lawyers.

Trump stands accused of 34 felony counts involving the falsification of business records to hide a hush money payment made to a adult movie star he allegedly had a sexual relationship with. Trump continues to maintain the affair never occurred and plead no guilty to all charges.

Speaking to MSNBC during the afternoon session, legal analyst Danny Cevallos said he was shocked that Trump's lawyers are raising few objections during Cohen's testimony.

Cohen has kept his answers concise but has still detailed his conversations with Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg about ways to funnel the money.

It prompted host Katy Tur to ask about the lack of objections from the defense team.

Read More: Michael Cohen: Trump mastered the art of the dodge to avoid accountability — until now

"That is a question for the ages," said Cevallos. "There have been many times I think they could have objected. When it comes to the prosecution asking leading questions on direct, that's a judgment call."

He explained that, at times, it can seem as if they're trying to hide something by objecting too much. So, there's a "strategy" to walk that line with the jury.

"But that being said, I think I can fairly say even the judge himself has opined that there aren't enough objections from defense counsel because he said as much," Cevallos explained.

He's referencing the exchange between Judge Juan Merchan and Trump's lawyers after the testimony of actress and director Stormy Daniels. The lawyers called for a mistrial, saying that the details she gave prejudiced the jury. Merchan told them that they should have objected more if they found what she said objectionable.

Each time the defense lodged an objection, the judge found in their favor.

"It's really tough to criticize their style of not objecting," Cevallos continued. "But when you don't object, you don't preserve the issue for appeal. And arguably, going back to the Stormy issue. To me, Stormy Daniels' testimony represents the first major appealable issue. To what degree has this been waived on appeal? Not a lot of objections. Not sure what the strategy is. These are all able counsel at the defense table. I am surprised they haven't objected more."

Retired Judge Jill Konviser, who worked with Merchan for 15 years, explained that defense lawyers must work to ensure they don't alienate the jury with too many objections, even if they are sustained.

"I disagree with your panelist, who said the only issue so far is some of the information that was not objected to earlier by Stormy Daniels. That created an issue. But objections are strategic," she said.

"And judges do not like to get involved in a defense posture or a prosecutor's way of trying the case. They want them to try their cases. They know better than the judge in terms of what they need."

See the full conversation below or at the link here.

Trump lawyer's courtroom tactics shock legal analyst www.youtube.com