New York Attorney General Letitia James has strategically used Ivanka Trump's forgetful testimony as the last piece of evidence in her fraud trial against former President Donald Trump, his sons Eric and Donald Jr., and the Trump Organization, according to legal experts. With no jury to impress, James made the calculated decision to rely on Trump's uncertain recollection of events related to the allegations of asset inflation and deception facing the defendants.

Ivanka Trump had been attempting to avoid giving evidence in the civil fraud trial for two years, but was eventually confirmed as a witness just days before her court appearance on Wednesday. During her testimony, she repeatedly claimed that she couldn't recall the details surrounding the allegations. The attorney representing Ivanka Trump was contacted for comment but did not respond.

Attorney General Letitia James is specifically accusing the Trumps of inflating their assets and net worths in order to deceive insurance companies, banks, and others. However, former President Trump has vehemently denied any wrongdoing and characterized the case as a politically motivated effort to hinder his chances of securing a second term in the White House. Despite the ongoing trial, Trump remains the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

Real-estate attorney Paul Golden, a partner at Coffey Modica law firm in New York, explained that in the absence of a jury, Attorney General James strategically placed Ivanka Trump as the final witness, fully aware that her testimony would likely underwhelm. Golden highlighted that in a jury trial, the prosecution would typically aim to conclude the case with a strong witness who would strongly testify against the defendants. However, judges are less swayed by the order of witness presentation, which likely influenced James's decision to present Ivanka as the last witness.

Judge Arthur Engoron, presiding over the case, had already determined on October 11 that a jury trial would not be appropriate for this particular case, as the financial penalties related to the alleged fraud should be determined by a judge.

It should be noted that while Ivanka Trump was initially named as a defendant in the case, an appeal court ruled that James's office was time-barred from pursuing charges against her.

Legal professor Carl Tobias from the University of Richmond in Virginia commented that Ivanka Trump's demeanor during her testimony contrasted starkly with her father's fiery confrontation in court. Tobias observed that unlike her father, Ivanka remained calm, refrained from engaging in conflicts with the judge or the attorney general's counsel, and even smiled. He suggested that her frequent claims of not remembering could be a strategic move to avoid making incriminating statements, as it is safer to say "I don't recall" rather than speculating or providing answers that may lead to further trouble.

Expert on financial crime, Professor Eric Chaffee from Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, highlighted that while some may view the constant use of "I don't recall" as evasive, it is a wise legal strategy. Chaffee explained that executives like Ivanka Trump review numerous documents and engage in numerous conversations, making it safer to admit to a lack of recollection rather than being caught off guard by an unknown document or conversation.

In January 2021, Ivanka Trump's attorney stated that she would fight a subpoena to testify, but Judge Engoron ruled last week that she would be required to give her testimony. In a separate ruling last month, Engoron found that Donald Trump, Eric Trump, and Donald Trump Jr. had committed fraud in their property evaluations. Engoron himself will determine the outcome of the six remaining charges, including falsifying business records, insurance fraud, and conspiracy claims, as Trump's legal team opted to forgo a jury trial.