bounds for potential trump testimony really, he is considering the relevance to the trial, the reason, first of all, let me say i think the prosecutors were somewhat conservative in the different areas that they put forth as being potentially useful for cross-examination. the main problem for trump here is that the areas that they want a cross-examine him in all go to veracity credibility, and he s on trial for fraud. basically. and so that really opens up an issue if you ve previously found to be lying, and that s what s really opening the door to all of these other issues. so there s been some discussion, i think a little bit confusing in the media that this is all bad character evidence that s true in a sense, certainly, because it slams up his character but it will only come in because he s taken a stand and his credibility, any witnesses, any defendants credibility is very much an issue when they re testifying
testimony. that s really when we zoom in, that s what the purpose is of this hearing. the prosecution wants to bring in these things insofar as they tend to show his falsity, his pattern of false statements. so that s what they want to bring in. really strateically they really want to back up the dump truck and bring in all the bad evidence that they can about donald trump. and that s not limited to trump as defendant. this has long been the strategy of state prosecutors, federal prosecutors, they always want to bring in bad character evidence because it s so devastatingly effective. that s why we have a rule and we have so many rules at the federal and state level that really limit how much of this comes in and leave it to the judge. in almost every case where this happens you really can t have a blueprint. it s a judgment call because it s a balancing test. and the judge is ultimately going to balance how prejudicial this is against how valuable it is as evidence, what s called the p
needs to really make a tough decision here, if trump testifies, what he s going to allow in, and what s going to be unduly prejudiced. . the rule against character evidence is so important. i say this as a criminal defense attorney, take what i say with a block of salt. there s a rule that you can t introduce bad things somebody has done in the past. it s a rule with so many exceptions, it might as well not be a rule at all. in new york, the procedure is essentially a sandoval hearing, and what they re doing is giving trump a preview of what they would like to introduce as those prior bad acts if the judge lets them. if it were up to the state, the prosecutors, they will enter all manner of bad acts. that s why you have a hearing. generally speaking in the
Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, in our "Listen and Learn" series, we're discussing Relevance specifically, multiple uses for the same evidence, conditional.
to her, calls these charges character assassination. does that really matter, that term? it s not a legal term. does it matter in this case? correct. you make a great point. of course her lawyers are going to contest this. first of all, this investigation has been going on for 20 months. her defense attorneys, rightfully, are not accustomed to surprise. the courtroom isn t like the movies. there is no surprise there. the prosecutors are required to turn over evidence. what her attorneys are arguing is that this is really speaking to improper character evidence, as opposed to evidence that would be relevant to the charges. so really whether or not it is a viable charge is going to depend on the strength and veracity of the witness the prosecutors intend to produce. so it s a little premature to