In a court case involving former President Donald Trump, New York City prosecutors have repeatedly made references to the leaked Access Hollywood tape in which Trump made crude comments, even though the judge ruled that the jury could not hear or watch the tape itself. The tape, which leaked just before the 2016 presidential election, featured Trump making lewd comments about groping women in the presence of a TV host. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his team have argued that the tape was a catalyst for a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels, who alleged an affair with Trump. However, the judge has reiterated that playing the tape in court would be prejudicial to Trump.
The defense team in the case has argued that the prosecution has been trying to introduce evidence, including the Access Hollywood tape, that is not directly related to Trump’s alleged crimes. They have cited a recent decision in the case of Harvey Weinstein, whose conviction was overturned by the New York State Court of Appeals. The decision in Weinstein’s case was based on the Molineux rule, which states that evidence of prior uncharged crimes cannot be entered into evidence to infer the guilt of the defendant. The defense in Trump’s case has argued that the evidence being introduced does not establish the elements of the crime charged, but rather implies Trump’s guilt.
During the trial, former Trump campaign press secretary and White House communications director Hope Hicks testified that Trump’s concern following the leaked tape was how it would affect his wife, Melania Trump. Hicks stated that Trump values his wife’s opinion and did not want his family to be hurt or embarrassed during the campaign. This testimony could potentially undermine the prosecution’s arguments that the Access Hollywood tape was a catalyst for the Stormy Daniels payment out of concern for the campaign’s image.
The judge in the case has reiterated that the Access Hollywood tape cannot be introduced as evidence or played aloud in the courtroom due to its prejudicial nature towards Trump. The prosecution attempted to argue that a 2016 Washington Post article discussing the tape should be allowed as evidence to establish the date it was posted. The defense team emphasized that evidence being introduced should be directly relevant to the charges against Trump, and that allowing certain evidence could prejudice the jury against him.
The trial also involved discussions of the Sandoval rule, which addresses a defendant potentially testifying at their own trial. Prosecutors typically ask to introduce past allegations of behavior by the defendant, which can impact whether the defendant chooses to testify. In Trump’s case, the issue revolved around what questions Trump could be asked if he chose to testify. The parties continued to discuss these issues before adjourning for the day. It remains unclear whether Trump will testify as the trial proceeds.
In summary, the case against Donald Trump involves complex legal arguments regarding the introduction of evidence, particularly the leaked Access Hollywood tape, and its relevance to the alleged crimes Trump is charged with. The defense team has raised concerns about prejudicial evidence being used against Trump, while the prosecution has attempted to establish a connection between the tape and the Stormy Daniels payment. Testimony from witnesses, such as Hope Hicks, has provided additional context to Trump’s reactions to the tape and its impact on his family during the 2016 campaign. As the trial continues, the judge and both parties are engaged in discussions about legal precedents and rules that will shape the outcome of the case.
