On 4/3, an intriguing letter Trump filed on 3/19 in the NY criminal case became public. If Trump takes the stand, the People would seek to cross-examine him about “13 different court determinations” about him as well as the “underlying facts” that led to those. ...
1/11
... We don’t know which prior court findings the People seek to introduce. (If the letter is imprecise, the People might also be seeking to put in other kinds of findings—like the Jan. 6 Committee’s.) In any case, Trump seeks to bar them all. ...
/2
... NY case law calls for judges to hold a pretrial “Sandoval” hearing where defendants can find out what evidence of their prior “criminal, vicious, or immoral acts” the judge would let in if the defendant elects to testify.
...
/3 bit.ly/3TOrMjV
... The judge is not supposed to allow in acts offered just to show the defendant’s “bad character” or “criminal bent.” Also, judges are supposed to avoid deterring the defendant from taking the stand—potentially depriving the jury of material evidence. ...
/4
OTOH, the judge can let in acts to prove the defendant’s (1) lack of “credibility, veracity or honesty” or (2) demonstrated willingness to put “self-interest” above "the interests of society." Those 2 categories neatly encapsulate virtually Trump’s entire life. ....
/5
... Typically, acts like “fraud,” “deceit,” & “cheating” are classic examples of admissible acts. On the other hand, “conduct similar to that of which the defendant is presently charged may be highly prejudicial” &, therefore, should usually be excluded ...
/6
... What might the People seek to put in? His recent civil “persistent fraud" judgment? His 2019 charity fraud adjudication? The Trump University stuff? The Jan. 6 Committee’s findings about election lies & alternate slates of electors? ...
/7
... The convictions of Trump’s companies for tax fraud? The E Jean Carroll adjudications for sex abuse & serial defamation? The Ukraine impeachment findings? ...
/8
... My wild guesses are that Judge Merchan would keep out guilty pleas of Trump’s companies (technically not Trump); E Jean Carroll stuff (inflammatory); Trump U (settlement, not adjudication); J6 and Ukraine (inflammatory, cumbersome, not adjudicated) ...
/9
... but allow in “persistent fraud” & “charity fraud” adjudications & most underlying findings.
What do NY criminal practitioners think? What are the People trying to introduce and what will Merchan likely permit?
/10-end
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.