MANHATTAN (CN) — A New York judge on Monday smacked down Donald Trump’s bid to keep ex-lawyer Michael Cohen and adult film star Stormy Daniels from testifying at his upcoming criminal trial over hush-money payments.
In a pair of rulings addressing the parties’ motions in limine, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan denied Trump’s assertion that Cohen should be precluded from testifying because of credibility concerns.
“This court has been unable to locate any treatise, statute, or holding from courts in this jurisdiction, or others, that support defendant’s rationale that a prosecution witness should be kept off the witness stand because his credibility has been previously called into question,” Merchan said in a ruling.
Trump’s team had previously moved to block Cohen’s testimony on the grounds that he was a “liar” who had committed perjury in the past. They also tried to keep Daniels, the adult film actress at the center of this criminal trial, from taking the stand.
“Similar to Cohen, she seeks to tell contrived stories with salacious details of events she claimed occurred nearly 20 years ago, which have no place at a trial involving the types of charges at issue,” Trump claimed in a filing this month.
But Merchan denied that request, too, finding her testimony is “inextricably intertwined with the narrative of events and is necessary background for the jury.”
Prosecutors accuse Trump of falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments he made to Daniels while running for the 2016 presidency. According to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Trump directed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen to pay Daniels for her silence regarding a supposed extramarital sexual relationship with Trump.
Last year, Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He has repeatedly claimed the charges from Bragg’s office are politically motivated.
That’s not an argument he can make in court, however. In his Monday rulings, Merchan also precluded Trump’s lawyers from claiming the charges are examples of “government misconduct” or are in any way “novel, unusual or unprecedented.” They also can’t argue that the court is politically biased.
“These issues are not relevant and will only serve to confuse a jury,” Merchan wrote.
Trump had previously claimed Bragg’s accusations were election interference; a way to punish a Republican presidential nominee for challenging a Democratic incumbent. But Bragg says it was actually Trump who sought to influence an election in 2016 by paying Daniels to cover up the apparent sex scandal that could have damaged his campaign.
Trump sought to keep Bragg from arguing that in trial. In his Monday rulings, Merchan chided the former president for trying to do so, asserting that he already allowed prosecutors to make that argument in a past court order.
“Rearguing this court’s prior rulings in this manner is procedurally and professionally inappropriate and a waste of this court’s valuable resources,” Merchan said.
To make that argument, though, Bragg’s team may not have access to a crucial piece of evidence — an infamous 2005 tape from the entertainment news program "Access Hollywood" in which Trump vulgarly boasted on a hot mic about approaching women as a man of wealth and power.
Fearing the tape could strike “undue prejudice” to Trump, Merchan seeks to find a “proper balance” by allowing prosecutors to elicit testimony about the tape.
“However, is not necessary that the tape itself be introduced into evidence or that it be played for the jury,” Merchan wrote.
The tape was initially leaked in 2016 during Trump’s presidential run. Prosecutors hoped it would prove their theory that Trump’s campaign was damaged by its release, and sought to do damage control by paying Daniels to cover up more supposed unsavory behavior.
But for now, the bombshell clip won’t be played in court.
“The court may reconsider this aspect of the ruling should the defense open the door,” Merchan added.
The criminal trial was initially slated to start later this month. But after both parties requested more time to pour over newly released evidence, Merchan pushed the start date back to at least mid-April, pending a hearing on March 25.
Follow @Uebey
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Sudan war marks one-year anniversary April 15, 2024
-
Hunter Biden appeals April 12, 2024 -
