Opinion: By making a grave mistake, prosecutors could potentially give Trump a ticket to avoid jail time.
Jim Walden
A few days after this, New York's highest court annulled the sex crimes conviction of renowned Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein.
There's an intriguing link between these two cases, though it might not seem so at first sight. The recent dramatic events in the Weinstein case highlight why Judge Juan Merchan, presiding over the Trump trial, must change his ruling allowing Trump to be queried about allegedly similar misconduct in other cases. If he doesn't, Trump could easily have his conviction revoked.
Deanna Paul
Donald Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to hide his alleged interference in the 2016 election. The case's argument is simple: In October 2016, Trump's campaign was in trouble due to leaked video from the Access Hollywood show. The footage featured Trump bragging about grabbing women by their private parts.
At around the same time, two women — Karen McDougal, an ex-Playboy model, and Stormy Daniels, an adult film star — came forward, sharing sensational tales of their encounters with Trump. Prosecutors allege he didn't want any revelations about these relationships to distract from his White House ambitions. Trump, they accuse, agreed to buy the women's silence. He and his associates falsified business records to conceal the transactions. He went on to win the US presidency.
The Trump trial began in earnest last Monday, and after the first week of testimonies, it's clear that prosecutors have a solid case against Trump. David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer and an associate of Trump's, painted a detailed picture of a "catch-and-kill" scheme involving Trump and his lawyer, Michael Cohen. The prosecution is just getting started, with Cohen, who played a pivotal role in the Daniels' payment and reimbursement, expected to appear as a star witness. Trump, on the other hand, denies any wrongdoing.
Trump's conduct, including his attacks on Michael Cohen and other expected witnesses, along with his more animated courtroom mannerism (as described by New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman to CNN), suggests that he may be concerned about being convicted due to the strength of the case. Instead of relying on the solid case they have, prosecutors are considering cross-examining Trump on matters that shouldn't be relevant to this trial.
Merchan approved letting prosecutors question Trump about recent violations of a gag order and his courtroom loss to New York's Attorney General, Letitia James, who proved that Trump engaged in a multiyear financial fraud, including overinflating property assets for loans and underreporting those assessments on tax declarations. They also plan to ask him about a case involving writer E. Jean Carroll. She successfully sued him for defamation and sexual assault last year.
Prosecutors are committing a significant error, just as Justice Merchan is. None of the events mentioned above relate to the Manhattan hush money payments. Trump is not on trial for being immoral or unethical. He's on trial for using bogus records to hide his election interference. All other unlawful activities, even those he has been found liable for, are irrelevant.
The prosecutors and the judge have put Trump in a complex situation. The Constitution guarantees his right to testify in his own defense or to refuse to do so. He's said he desires to testify.
However, Trump must now weigh his right to defend himself against the prospect of prosecutors questioning him about events that don't pertain to the current case. He could argue that his right to testify has been undermined - that he's been discouraged from exercising this right.
Even if he didn't really intend to testify, Trump could utilize Merchan's decision as a justification for a new trial. This is similar to what happened in the Weinstein trial. In 2020, Weinstein stood trial for felony sex crimes against three women. Judge James Burke, like Merchan, permitted prosecutors to cross-examine Weinstein, should he have testified, about more than two dozen unrelated events, including bullying and angry outbursts to employees and other associates - most unconnected to his courtroom credibility. Weinstein opted not to testify.
He appealed his conviction on various grounds. The New York State Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 ruling on Thursday, confirmed that the producer had not had a fair trial.
Justice Merchan should not commit the same mistake. By invalidating his decision, he can protect the sanctity of Trump's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If he doesn't, Trump could get his conviction annulled while the jury's verdict is still drying.
Read also:
Source: edition.cnn.com
