Lawyers for Donald Trump recently filed a letter in his hush-money criminal case, seeking to block prosecutors from questioning the former president about prior "court determinations."
Trump, the presumed 2024 GOP presidential nominee, is facing criminal charges in New York City from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg surrounding allegations that he illegally falsified business records in order to conceal "hush money" payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels. The payments were made during the 2016 presidential election to keep Daniels quiet about an alleged affair she and Trump had in 2006. Trump has denied the affair ever happened and pleaded not guilty to the charges against him.
The case is set to begin on April 15, although Trump's attorneys have sought to delay the case. They filed a motion on Friday calling for Manhattan Judge Juan Merchan's recusal from overseeing the case. It would be the first of Trump's four criminal cases to go to trial as he runs to reclaim the White House as well as the first-ever criminal trial of a former president.
On Sunday, Lawfare senior editor Roger Parloff flagged a letter that Trump's attorneys wrote to Merchan in March, seeking to block prosecutors from cross-examining the former president about "13 different court determinations."
"On 4/3, an intriguing letter Trump filed on 3/19 in the NY criminal case became public," Parloff wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter, along with a screenshot of the letter.
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. ...
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) April 7, 2024
1/11 pic.twitter.com/jtwXPaGKNd
In the letter, Trump's attorneys wrote that prosecutors had served a Sandoval notice on March 10.
"In it, they stated their intention to question President Trump, if he testifies, about thirteen different court determinations, as well as about most of the underlying facts leading to those determinations," they wrote. "We will be moving to preclude the People from asking about these items and will seek a Sandoval hearing."
Susan Necheles, an attorney representing Trump, declined to comment. Newsweek has contacted Parloff for comment via email.
On X, Parloff wrote: "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."
He also noted that New York 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."
Parloff added: "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."
But, he wrote, 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."
Parloff wrote that acts like fraud, deceit and cheating "are classic examples of admissible acts," but noted that "conduct similar to that which the defendant is presently charged may be high prejudicial & therefore, should usually be excluded."
Parloff said he believes Merchan would keep out findings that would be viewed as inflammatory, including anything to do with E. Jean Carroll. The former president was ordered to pay Carroll $83.3 million in January for comments he made after she first publicly accused him of raping her in the dressing room of a luxury department store in the 1990s. A separate jury last May awarded Carroll $5 million after finding him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.
"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)," Parloff wrote. "But allow in 'persistent fraud' & 'charity fraud' adjudications and most underlying findings."
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
fairness meter
To Rate This Article
About the writer
Khaleda Rahman is Newsweek's Senior News Reporter based in London, UK. Her focus is reporting on abortion rights, race, education, ... Read more
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
