Trump Notches Minor Wins in Hush Money Case as ‘Inflammatory and Unduly Prejudicial’ Evidence Blocked

But his bid to prevent testimony from Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels was rejected by judge.
Trump Notches Minor Wins in Hush Money Case as ‘Inflammatory and Unduly Prejudicial’ Evidence Blocked
Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump departs a pre-trial hearing in a so-called hush-money case at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City on Feb. 15, 2024. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Tom Ozimek
3/20/2024
Updated:
3/20/2024
0:00

Former President Donald Trump notched several small victories in his so-called hush money case in New York, with a judge siding with his request to prevent some “inflammatory and unduly prejudicial” evidence from being shown in court, although his bid to block testimony from Michael Cohen and adult performer Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, was rejected.

In a pair of orders issued on March 18, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan granted in part and denied in part President Trump’s request to exclude some testimony and evidence that the former president said his opponents want to exploit to undermine his 2024 presidential campaign.

In one order, the judge agreed to preclude the results of a lie-detector test taken by Ms. Clifford, an adult film actress who claims to have been paid $130,000 to keep quiet about an affair she says she had with the former president.

President Trump, who has denied the affair, wanted to block Ms. Clifford’s testimony on the basis that it would unduly prejudice the jury and that she would try to use the trial to monetize her claims.

The judge blocked the lie-detector results from Ms. Clifford, but he rejected President Trump’s bid to block her testimony in its entirety.

The judge also partially sided with President Trump’s request to preclude evidence regarding the so-called “Access Hollywood” tape.

Justice Merchan noted in his second order that prosecutors may not enter the tape into evidence nor play the recording—which contains comments of a sexual nature—to jurors. However, the judge said that prosecutors may “elicit testimony” about the contents of the tape.

President Trump’s bid to block testimony from Mr. Cohen, his former personal attorney, was rejected by the judge. The former president argued in his request that Mr. Cohen had a history of lying and would likely lie again on the stand, though the judge rejected this rationale.

Also denied was President Trump’s request to preclude testimony from Dino Sajudin, a former Trump doorman who wrote a book with some salacious allegations.

However, the judge imposed some curbs on Mr. Sajudin’s testimony, limiting it to “the fact of” statements that may not explore any underlying details of what allegedly transpired between President Trump and Mr. Sajudin.

More Details

In the case, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged President Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to conceal the alleged $130,000 payoff.

Under New York state law, falsifying business records by itself is a misdemeanor. But if the records fraud was used to cover up or commit another crime, the charge could be elevated to a felony.

Mr. Bragg has charged President Trump with a felony falsifying records charge, which would require prosecutors to prove that it was done to hide the commission of a second crime.

Mr. Cohen has claimed that he made $130,000 in a number of separate payments to Ms. Clifford via a shell company that was then reimbursed by President Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, and recorded as legal expenses.

In a 47-page motion filed in late February, President Trump asked Justice Merchan to issue pretrial rulings that would block certain evidence and witness testimony that the former president said his political opponents wanted to use to damage his presidential campaign.

The motion accused prosecutors of planning to put forward “improper arguments” and “inadmissible evidence” in order to bolster their “listless ‘zombie’ case.”

President Trump’s motion challenges the credibility of the witnesses, including calling Mr. Cohen a “liar” and suggesting Ms. Clifford would offer “false” testimony.

(Left) Former President Donald Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen leaves the New York State Supreme Court after testifying at Trump's fraud trial in New York City on Oct. 25, 2023. (Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images) (Right) Former President Donald Trump sits in court during his civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court in New York City on Oct. 25, 2023. (Seth Wenig-Pool/Getty Images)
(Left) Former President Donald Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen leaves the New York State Supreme Court after testifying at Trump's fraud trial in New York City on Oct. 25, 2023. (Timothy A. Clary/AFP via Getty Images) (Right) Former President Donald Trump sits in court during his civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court in New York City on Oct. 25, 2023. (Seth Wenig-Pool/Getty Images)
In 2018, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to violating campaign finance law in connection with the payments. In his plea deal, Mr. Cohen claimed that he made the payments at President Trump’s direction and that he was reimbursed by President Trump’s company, even though he earlier claimed he paid the money out of his own pocket.

In his motion to block some evidence, President Trump sought to preclude Mr. Cohen’s testimony, arguing that he recently committed perjury and that “he plans to do so again at this criminal trial.”

“The Court should preclude Cohen’s testimony in order to protect the integrity of this Court and the process of justice,” President Trump’s attorneys argued.

However, in his March 19 order, the judge disagreed, saying that he was not aware of any basis for the “rationale that a prosecution witness should be kept off the witness stand because his credibility has been called into question.”

The former president also sought to block nearly 100 statements attributed to the former president that prosecutors have identified as potential exhibits but that Trump attorneys said “are largely irrelevant, stale, and cumulative.” President Trump’s legal team asked for a pre-trial hearing to determine the admissibility of each of the statements in question, which the judge denied.

Although the judge denied this request, he said that prosecutors would have to “lay a proper foundation” for the introduction of the statements and be prepared to demonstrate why a given statement is to be introduced in court as an admission—unless it’s obvious on its face.

The trial was initially scheduled to start on March 25 but has been delayed until at least mid-April because of a dispute over the large amount of discovery materials produced by prosecutors.
Tom Ozimek is a senior reporter for The Epoch Times. He has a broad background in journalism, deposit insurance, marketing and communications, and adult education.
twitter
Related Topics