Former President Donald Trump makes a gesture in the hallway outside the courtroom as he returns from a break at Manhattan criminal court in New York, Thursday, April 18, 2024. (Timothy A. Clary/Pool Photo via AP)
On Friday, after a full jury was chosen in Donald Trump's criminal hush-money and election interference trial in New York, a hearing was held to expose the former president’s bad acts, giving him an idea of the kind of questions he could face if he chooses to testify.
The process is known as a Sandoval hearing. As Law&Crime previously reported, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office filed a notice with the court on Wednesday requesting its desired parameters for the hearing aimed at undermining Trumps’ credibility before the jury.
The purpose of the hearing was succinctly explained by former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance in analysis Friday:
Prosecutors can’t offer evidence of prior crimes and bad acts to show a defendant is of bad character or that because he’s done wrong in the past he must be guilty in the instant case.
If they want to use evidence like this in their case, it has to be relevant to one of the issues. But they can use this evidence to impeach the credibility of the defendant as a witness if he testifies.
Prosecutors have indicated that they are going to ask Trump questions about a limited number of Trump’s more recent legal defeats, namely, veteran columnist E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit as well as New York Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud trial. The ruling from Trump v. Clinton was proposed too, with prosecutors pointing out how the court sanctioned Trump and ordered he pay $937,989 in fees for filing a 'frivolous, bad faith lawsuit.'
With the Sandoval hearing, Trump will have an idea of what he will be up against should he testify, a point from which there is no return for a criminal defendant — for better or worse.
The former president has pleaded not guilty to all charges he faces and is appealing both his judgment in the civil fraud case as well as the Carroll defamation case. Historically, Trump has said that he would testify — and he may. He briefly did so in his defamation trial but it was short-lived and contentious.
According to Lawfare, Trump attorney Emil Bove wanted to keep discussion of the civil fraud trial out because if it should come up when the former president is on the stand, discussion of it may confuse jurors. He also argued procedural issues somewhat unpersuasively, contending that because an appellate court had stayed relief in part, Bragg should be precluded from crossing him on any findings in that case.
But prosecutor Matthew Colangelo was insistent: Trump lied on the stand in the civil fraud case and that fact should be one of the facts the jury in the hush-money and criminal election interference case should consider, too.
During the civil trial, after Trump violated Engoron’s gag order, the judge put Trump on the stand and the court found that he lied, says Colangelo. Its “hard to think of something more probative than” lying under oath “in a courthouse 200 yds from here—if not closer—6 mths ago.”
— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) April 19, 2024
Additionally, evidence from the Carroll defamation trial was 'too attenuated,' according to Bove, and too long ago to use to against Trump now.
“Are they making arguments about sexual misconduct?” Lawfare reported Bove remarking in court late Friday afternoon. “This case is about documents.”
As to the Trump v. Clinton evidence, Trump’s defense team told Merchan that the ruling in that case was “disputed,” drawing the judge to question exactly what Bove meant multiple times. The attorney clarified that it was under appeal. Appearing inclined to side with the prosecution, Merchan cited a line from the Trump v. Clinton ruling back to the former president’s defense team:
Merchan stated that the lawsuit should never have been filed, citing a ruling that described it as “frivolous” and “in bad faith.”
The judge remarked, “If that’s not Sandoval I don’t know what is.”
In a different case that prosecutors want to refer to, Bove argued that the charges were not about Trump the man but Trump companies, citing People v. Trump Corporation.
Colangelo argued that the evidence should be admitted because corporate criminal convictions where the defendant had control over those properties are relevant. Prosecutors also mentioned that evidence from James v. Trump Foundation should be included because Trump was in charge when fiduciary obligations were breached.
The judge will make a decision on the evidence by Monday.
Trump’s indictment in New York alleges that he falsified records to conceal a $130,000 payment to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, reimbursing him for the money he gave to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in 2016. The payment was veiled to avoid affecting his presidential election efforts that year. The indictment also implicates Trump in a scheme with American Media Inc., the publisher of the National Enquirer.
Bragg claims that the media group paid Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 to prevent her from speaking publicly about a sexual relationship she had with Trump.