One politician grumbled in the courtroom, sounded off to the reporters who gathered outside and seemingly nodded off in full view of the jury. The other has followed the courtroom action avidly, his head twisting as if watching a tennis match, and occasionally broken into song in the hallway.
Indeed, while both men face possible prison time and undetermined political damage, the contrast between the two powerful 70-something politicians recently on trial in Manhattan —Donald J. Trump and Robert Menendez — extends far beyond their political affiliations. Each has adopted very different demeanors while sitting at the defense table.
Mr. Menendez, 70, the veteran Democratic senator from New Jersey facing federal corruption charges, has been an attentive participant, pivoting his gaze between the witnesses testifying against him and his defense team fighting back. He makes no faces and has held no impromptu news conferences. His social media has been mum on the trial.
Mr. Trump, 78, took a different tack. During his seven-week trial in state court, the former president and presumptive Republican nominee staged the legal equivalent of a sit-in, glumly protesting the proceedings. There were substantial stretches where he was either sleeping or, as he asserted, resting his “beautiful blue eyes.”
He occasionally mumbled complaints under his breath — earning a warning from the judge — while spending much of his time outside the courtroom loudly berating Democrats, President Biden, the Manhattan district attorney and the very air around him. (He complained about the chilly temperature in the courtroom.) Some of his out-of-court comments and online postings caused the judge in the case, Juan M. Merchan, to fine Mr. Trump $10,000 for violating a gag order in the case.
Mr. Menendez is accused of trading favors for cash, gold bars and a Mercedes-Benz convertible; his trial, which just wrapped up its fifth week, is expected to last until July.
And while we do not yet know how — or whether — Mr. Menendez’s comportment will affect the verdict in his case, Mr. Trump’s attitude certainly didn’t seem to help: A jury found him guilty of 34 felonies on just its second day of deliberations, a clean sweep for prosecutors and a verdict that comes with up to four years in prison. (His sentencing is July 11, four days before the Republican National Convention, which he is expected to headline.)
Defense attorneys and jury experts say that almost every impression defendants make can sway a panel’s opinion, from the way they sit to whether they take notes.
“The jury’s going to look at everything you do,” said Arthur Aidala, a prominent criminal defense lawyer. “If you’re picking your nose, you’re picking the wax out of your ears, they’re going to be watching you, right? You’re the person they’re judging. And whether we like it or not, they’re not going to just judge you on the evidence.”
Renato Stabile, an attorney and managing director at Dubin Research and Consulting, says he advises clients that tacit evaluation begins “the moment the jury walks into the room” for jury selection.
“Everybody’s watching the defendant like a hawk,” he said, adding: “It’s like being an actor onstage. When the curtain goes up, all eyes are on you.”
And Mr. Stabile said that his primary concern was clients who appear not to be taking the charges — and case against them — seriously, including joking around with their attorneys, laughing or “showing any lightness.”
“It could be a highly tense environment and situation and occasionally you need to break the tension,” he said. “But jurors pick up on those things.”
Those signals sometimes extend to the lawyers themselves, Mr. Aidala added, saying that he modifies his wardrobe and accouterment depending on where he’s working, right down to the pens he uses. Fancier for some cases, more utilitarian when he needs to take fast notes.
Mr. Aidala mentioned a murder case in Suffolk County where he “dialed it down a little bit,” in his choice of attire, versus a case in federal court he worked on defending Lawrence Taylor, a former Giants linebacker.
“I think juries there expect, you know, a certain heightened sense of style,” Mr. Aidala said.
The contrast between the two courtrooms where Mr. Trump and Mr. Menendez have been tried, just a block or so apart, is stark. The federal courthouse where Mr. Menendez is on trial is a gleaming tower, guarded by U.S. Marshals and adorned with sketches of judges and famous cases. There’s a staff fitness center, a spacious outdoor terrace and a cafeteria serving salmon, wraps, and salads.
The state court where Mr. Trump was convicted is a squatter, more squalid facility, ringed in scaffolding and abutting a demolition site. The interior is gloomy, the lighting little help. There’s a cafeteria here, too, staffed by a single hard-working employee and offering underfilled bags of chips, plastic-wrapped bagels and a menu that ranges from grilled cheese ($4.70) to grilled Swiss cheese ($5.95).
While Mr. Trump’s trial brought a crush of media and security, with barricades inside and outside the building, the scene surrounding Mr. Menendez’s case is considerably more mellow.
If Mr. Trump used breaks in proceedings to make brash statements to reporters in the hallway outside the courtroom, the senator often stands quietly at the defense table as court prepares to start, either gazing back at the gallery or drumming his fingers on the desk in front of him. (He does have his quirks: In the early weeks of the trial, Mr. Menendez could be heard singing loudly to himself in a nearby hallway during breaks, though the exact song was uncertain.)
Mr. Menendez is being tried alongside two businessmen, Wael Hana and Fred Daibes. After court is done for the day, he usually walks among the crowd of reporters and observers in the courtroom, including his daughter, the MSNBC host Alicia Menendez, who has sat in the front row on her days off from television duties, quietly observing and taking notes. Mr. Trump’s sons, Eric and Donald Jr., also attended their father’s trial, later blasting the case in media appearances.
Valerie Hans, a professor of law at Cornell University who has studied jury behavior, noted that the presence and actions of defendants’ families and other supporters can influence juries too.
“They sometimes look to this ‘offstage’ behavior away from the witness box for clues about credibility,” Ms. Hans said.
Ms. Hans recalled a personal injury case in which jurors told her that they were puzzled as to why the injured woman’s husband was sitting so far away from his spouse. He was seeking damages for loss of companionship because of his wife’s physical state, and the distance led jurors to wonder “what the quality of their relationship really was.”
The testimony in both politicians’ cases has sometimes been uncomfortable to listen to, including an account of Mr. Trump having sex with a porn star, Stormy Daniels, whose $130,000 hush-money payoff in 2016 lay at heart of the 34 counts of falsifying business records that he was convicted on. (Mr. Trump still denies having sex with Ms. Daniels.)
In Mr. Menendez’s case, there have been less graphic, but still cringe-worthy details, including testimony about the senator ringing a small bell to summon his then-girlfriend, now-wife, Nadine, to an outdoor meeting.
But while Mr. Trump harrumphed at accounts of his alleged extramarital affairs, Mr. Menendez has remained placid despite testimony painting him as a corrupt public servant who bragged that he had “saved your ass” to a New Jersey businessman, Jose Uribe, who requested a covert favor.
Emotional outbursts are generally discouraged, Mr. Stabile said, though sometimes acceptable if authentic. “I think something that jurors and people are all very good at is picking up on manufactured emotions,” he said.
During another recent high-profile trial — that of President Biden’s son Hunter — the younger Mr. Biden appeared to fight back tears as his daughter, Naomi Biden Neal, described his battles with addiction. (Mr. Trump showed few emotions during his trial other than annoyance, though one prominent witness against him, Hope Hicks, a former top aide, was bought to tears during her testimony.)
Despite his seeming remorse for his behavior, Mr. Biden was convicted on three felony counts for lying on a federal firearms application.
To be sure, Ms. Hans said that most juries remain true to the idea that evidence is the most important element, rather than “tangential information they might glean” from the way a defendant comports themselves.
“When the prosecution case is strong,” she said, “they are likely to convict.”
Tracey Tully contributed reporting.