New York City prosecutors referred to the leaked Access Hollywood tape where former President Donald Trump made crude comments, despite the judge ruling that the jury could not hear or watch the tape. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his team have mentioned the tape multiple times, suggesting that it was the catalyst for a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. Trump is charged with falsifying business records related to Daniels in an effort to silence her story about an alleged affair with him. However, the judge reiterated that the tape cannot be introduced as evidence due to its prejudicial nature towards Trump.
The prosecution has argued that the release of the Access Hollywood tape caused panic within Trump’s campaign and ultimately led to the Stormy Daniels payoff. The judge has previously stated that playing the video for the jury would be too prejudicial. Despite this ruling, the prosecution attempted to introduce a 2016 Washington Post article discussing the tape to establish a timeline. Trump campaign press secretary and White House communications director Hope Hicks testified that Trump was worried about how the tape would affect his wife, Melania Trump, emphasizing that he values her opinion and did not want his family to be embarrassed during the campaign.
The defense team has pointed to the recent decision in Harvey Weinstein’s case, where his conviction was overturned due to the introduction of evidence not directly related to his alleged crimes. Trump’s attorneys argued that evidence, such as the Access Hollywood tape, was being presented to imply his guilt rather than establish elements of the crime charged. The defense also mentioned the Molineux rule, which states that evidence of prior uncharged crimes by an individual should not be used to infer guilt. Additionally, the Sandoval ruling, which addresses a defendant testifying at their own trial, was discussed in terms of what questions Trump could be asked if he chooses to testify.
The prosecution has continued to push for evidence related to the Access Hollywood tape, despite the judge’s ruling against playing the video in court. The defense team has raised concerns about the prejudicial nature of such evidence and how it could impact the jury’s perception of Trump’s guilt. Both parties continue to debate the admissibility of certain evidence and the potential implications for Trump’s defense. It remains unclear whether Trump will testify in the trial, but discussions about the Sandoval rule indicate that his decision may hinge on the questions he could face if he chooses to take the stand.
Overall, the trial of former President Donald Trump involves arguments over the admissibility of evidence related to the Access Hollywood tape and its potential impact on the case. Both the prosecution and defense are actively engaged in legal battles over the introduction of certain materials and the implications for Trump’s defense. The judge has ruled against playing the video for the jury due to its prejudicial nature, but references to the tape continue to be made throughout the trial. The outcome of the trial could have far-reaching implications for both Trump and the legal precedent in similar cases.
