Editor's note: Jim Walden and Deanna Paul are former prosecutors at the New York law firm Walden, Mahat & Haran. The views expressed in this commentary are their own. Read more opinion pieces on CNN.
CNN —
The presiding judge in Donald Trump's Manhattan trial told prosecutors last week that if he decides to take the witness stand, he will grill him for numerous acts unrelated to the charges he faces in the election interference case. He said it was possible.
Provided by Jim Walden
Jim Walden
Days later, New York's Supreme Court overturned Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein's sex crime conviction.
The connection between these two unrelated charges may not seem obvious, but there is a connection. And the recent dramatic developments in the Weinstein case have forced the Trump trial's presiding judge, Judge Juan Machan, to overturn a ruling that would have allowed him to question President Trump about misconduct proven in other cases. It shows a reason. Failure to do so could make it easier for Trump to overturn his conviction in the case.
Meredith Eve Flynn
deanna paul
President Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up allegations of trying to interfere in the 2016 election. The theory of this case is fairly simple. In October 2016, the then-Republican presidential candidate's campaign suspended his campaign after a leaked video from an Access Hollywood program went viral in which he boasted that he had permission from celebrities to “grab” women. was in a predicament. By their genitals.
Around the same time, two women, former Playboy Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels, came forward with bizarre stories about their relationships with Trump. Prosecutors argue that President Trump did not want revelations about his sordid affair to derail his White House ambitions. Prosecutors allege that Trump agreed to buy the women's silence, and that he and his associates falsified his business records to hide his payments. He barely went on to win the US presidential election.
The trial of the current president began in earnest last Monday, and after the first week of testimony, it is clear that prosecutors are in control of information about President Trump. David Pecker, former publisher of the National Enquirer and a close ally of President Trump, provides a textured account of the capture-and-kill plot undertaken by the former president and his longtime lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen. I drew it with a picture. And the prosecution has only just begun. Mr. Cohen, who played a key role in paying and redeeming Mr. Daniels, is expected to take the stand as a star witness. President Trump has denied any wrongdoing.
President Trump's public actions, including continued attempts to attack Michael Cohen and other prospective witnesses, and (as New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman told CNN) ) His recent more “animated” courtroom demeanor suggests he may be concerned about things like: He could be convicted, but given the strength of the case, he should be. But there are indications that prosecutors may plan to cross-examine Trump on matters that are unimportant or unimportant to the trial, rather than relying on the strong case they have so far. did.
Marchan agreed to allow prosecutors to question Trump about his recent gag order violations and his legal defeat against New York Attorney General Letitia James. He established that the former president engaged in multi-year financial fraud, including inflating the value of real estate assets and undervaluing real estate assets when seeking loans. Estimated tax return. He will also ask questions about the lawsuit that author E. Jean Carroll lost last year after successfully suing the former president for defamation and sexual assault.
Like Judge Machan, the prosecution also made serious mistakes. None of the above actions have anything to do with Manhattan's hush money payments. Trump is not being tried as a morally bankrupt person. He is on trial for using false records to cover up election interference. Other bad acts don't matter, even ones for which he is found to be responsible.
Prosecutors and judges put the former president in an intolerable position. The constitution gives him the right to testify in his own defense, or not to take the stand if he chooses. He said he wanted to testify.
But President Trump is currently weighing his right to protect himself against the certainty that he will be allowed to entertain by including questions about misconduct that are not part of the current trial in prosecutors' cross-examination. There must be. President Trump could argue that his right to testify has been “chilled,” meaning he has been given strong disincentives to exercise this constitutional right.
Get our free weekly newsletter
Trump could use Marchand's decision as the basis for a new trial, even if he had no intention of actually taking a position. This is essentially what happened in the Weinstein case. In 2020, Weinstein went on trial for felony sex crimes involving three women. The judge in the case, Judge James Burke, would fall prey to the same thing, and if Mr. Weinstein testifies, prosecutors will accuse him of more than two dozen acts of impunity in the case, including bullying and fits of anger toward employees and restaurant employees. The court ruled that officials can cross-examine. And most of it did not affect his credibility in court. Weinstein chose not to testify in the case.
He appealed his conviction on several grounds, including that Judge Burke's decision to allow this line of questioning jeopardized his right to testify in his own defense. In a 4-3 decision Thursday, the New York State Court of Appeals found that the producers did not receive a fair trial.
Judge Machan must not make the same mistake. He can and should overturn his sentence. Otherwise, Trump could have his conviction overturned before the ink on the jury's verdict is even dry.
