Judge declines Trump’s request to block Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels testimony

Former President Trump’s hush money judge plans to allow Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels to testify at trial, over Trump’s objections.

divide into two decision Published on MondayJudge Juan Mercian ruled on more than a dozen requests by both sides to exclude various pieces of evidence.

Marchan’s ruling led Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) office to tell a jury that Trump’s former fixer, Cohen, paid him hush money to keep quiet about salacious accusations against Trump. He was allowed to give a general history of the three people who made the claims.

The trial was scheduled to begin next Monday, but has been postponed for at least several weeks after new relevant documents came to light. The case could be heard by a jury as early as this spring, potentially marking Trump’s first criminal trial.

Mr. Bragg alleged that Mr. Trump illegally falsified business records when he reimbursed Mr. Cohen for payments to Mr. Daniels, an adult film actress who claims Mr. Trump had an affair with him. President Trump denies having an affair, but has pleaded not guilty to 34 charges.

Prosecutors are seeking to portray the payments as part of a broader “catch-and-kill” scheme to quell negative gossip about President Trump in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

Marchan’s ruling allows prosecutors to call not only Daniels and Cohen as witnesses during the trial, but also former Playboy model Karen McDougal and former Trump World Tower doorman Dino Sajudin. Ta. Both claim they were paid to withhold salacious accusations about Mr. Trump.

President Trump tried to prevent the jury from hearing from Cohen and the three people who allegedly received the payoff. Mr. Machan rejected these requests, but agreed to set certain limits on what Mr. Sajudin and Mr. McDougall could testify.

“Unless the public presents satisfactory evidence, testimony by or about Sajudin and McDougall will be limited to ‘facts’ and will not reveal the fundamentals of what allegedly happened between these individuals and the defendant. “We may not be able to explore the details,” Marchand wrote. He added that he would provide further details at the start of the trial.

President Trump has denied the underlying accusations by all three people who allegedly received payments.

Trump’s lawyers tried to block each of their testimonies and attack their credibility, but the former president’s lawyers left their most brutal attack on Cohen, given his past legal troubles. He then called him a liar who should not be allowed to express his position.

Marchan also said that any testimony regarding Cohen’s past guilty pleas would not be disclosed by Trump’s lawyers regarding the dismissal of previous Federal Election Commission (FEC) charges against him or the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision not to indict him. The court ruled that this did not “open the door” for evidence to be submitted. Campaign finance violation.

“There are myriad reasons why the FEC and the Department of Justice could decide not to enforce against defendant, all of which have no bearing on whether defendant is guilty of the charges here.” Marchand wrote.

The judge’s series of rulings on Monday also resolved several other evidentiary disputes between the two sides.

Last week, President Trump signaled in a court filing that he intended to offer his lawyers some watered-down, informal advice on defense, in which the former president called out “relevant incidents that gave rise to the charges.” He indicated that he intended to elicit evidence regarding the presence, involvement, and advice of lawyers at the time of the trial. Indictment. ” That evidence will be drawn primarily from Cohen, his lawyer said.

Marchan ruled on Monday that President Trump “does not offer, or cannot even offer,” a so-called defense in the presence of counsel, and that such a defense does not include the tactic’s waiver, including a waiver of privilege. He pointed out that it would protect Trump from the negative aspects.

“Admitting the defense in this case would effectively allow the defendant to invoke the very defense it declared not to rely, without any attendant obligation,” Marchand wrote. “The result would undoubtedly be to confuse and mislead the jury. This court cannot support such a tactic.”

In ruling for Trump on several other issues, the justices criticized Trump’s lawyers for raising arguments that Trump had already rejected.

“Rediscussing this Court’s previous decision in this manner is procedurally and professionally inappropriate and a waste of this Court’s precious resources,” Marchand wrote.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers have said that Mr. Trump does not intend to ask a jury to acquit him on the selective prosecution claim, which is the subject of the state’s lawsuit against Mr. He was prohibited from making such a claim.

The former president cited the novelty of his indictment, the delay in pre-indictment, the motives of Mr. Bragg and his office, the alleged bias of the court and its staff, and the reasons why the jury should certify him if he is convicted. It is not possible to point out the repercussions that Mr. Trump may face. Not guilty.

Marchand clarified that his ruling on selective prosecution does not prevent either party from impeaching a witness on cross-examination.

“However, the parties are on notice that the court will closely monitor any attempts to circumvent this court’s judgment,” he wrote. “The parties are directed to carefully craft their questions to avoid instilling concerns in the jury about matters that this court has already determined to be irrelevant and off-limits.”

Trump’s hush money trial, his first criminal trial, was scheduled to begin on March 25, but the plan was thrown off the table at the last minute by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. . 2 weeks left.

Machan postponed the trial until at least mid-April, and a hearing is now scheduled for March 25, when the judge and parties will discuss new documents and an updated schedule.