www.washingtonpost.com Open in urlscan Pro
184.28.207.181  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

Accessibility statementSkip to main content

Democracy Dies in Darkness
SubscribeSign in




Close
The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness
Trump hush money trialLive updates The jury The charges Key people The judge
Trump's lawyers The prosecutor
Trump hush money trialLive updates The jury The charges Key people The judge
Trump's lawyers The prosecutor
The Trump Cases


A N.Y. COURT TOSSED HARVEY WEINSTEIN’S CONVICTION. COULD IT HELP TRUMP?


EXPERTS SAID THE JUDGE IN TRUMP’S CASE WILL LIKELY STUDY THE RULING CLOSELY TO
TRY TO AVOID A SIMILAR OUTCOME

By Mark Berman
April 25, 2024 at 6:21 p.m. EDT

Former president Donald Trump in Manhattan criminal court on April 15. (Jabin
Botsford/The Washington Post)

Listen
6 min

Share
Comment on this storyComment111
Add to your saved stories
Save

The New York appeals court’s stunning decision Thursday to overturn Harvey
Weinstein’s sex-crimes conviction landed during the second week of Donald
Trump’s ongoing criminal trial — and will undoubtedly be closely examined by the
judge overseeing the Trump trial, according to legal experts.


Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment
newsletter.ArrowRight


The Weinstein decision could offer a potential avenue of appeal to the former
president’s attorneys or prompt New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to
adjust his rulings in the Trump case in real time, reflecting this newfound
direction from New York’s highest court, the experts said.



In the Weinstein case, the appeals court ruled 4-3 that the former movie
producer’s 2020 conviction should be thrown out because the trial judge allowed
testimony regarding “uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts” that were not
included in the criminal charges he faced. The appeals court also said the trial
judge erred by saying that Weinstein, if he testified, could be questioned about
a wide range of other alleged wrongdoing.

Advertisement

Story continues below advertisement



Merchan has similarly confronted questions about how much evidence to allow
jurors to hear about Trump’s behavior with women over time and what topics he
could be asked about on the stand.

“He doesn’t want to risk a reversal,” said Stephen Gillers, an emeritus law
professor at New York University. “The decision has to factor in and maybe
affect [his] rulings.”

But Cynthia Godsoe, a law professor at Brooklyn Law School, said that while
Merchan would closely review the decision, she believed it was unlikely to
impact Trump’s case.

“I’m sure he is scrutinizing it,” Godsoe said of Merchan. But she said Merchan
has already been meticulous about what allegations and evidence he allows into
the trial, putting him on safe ground.

Story continues below advertisement



“The judge has been very careful to keep out stuff that arguably could go in,
but he’s trying to be really careful, given the context” of a former president
on trial, Godsoe said. “He’s definitely being conservative.”

Advertisement


Trump has been charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records as part of
a hush money scheme to keep the adult-film actress Stormy Daniels, whose real
name is Stephanie Clifford, from publicly alleging during the 2016 presidential
campaign that they had an affair. He has pleaded not guilty and also faces three
other prosecutions in Florida, Georgia and D.C.

Follow Election 2024

Follow

Weinstein, like Trump, is a prominent New Yorker from Queens who was prosecuted
by the Manhattan district attorney’s office. In 2020, Weinstein was convicted in
New York by jurors who found that he forced oral sex on a former production
assistant and raped an aspiring actress. He was sentenced to 23 years. He was
also convicted in California in 2022 on counts that included rape and sentenced
to 16 years behind bars there.



The Manhattan district attorney’s office on Thursday pledged to retry Weinstein.
Cyrus Vance Jr., who had led that office during Weinstein’s prosecution, said in
a statement that he was “shocked” by the court’s decision, saying a lower court
had previously concluded that Weinstein’s trial judge allowed witness testimony
that was needed and fair.

Advertisement

Story continues below advertisement



The appeals court’s decision hinged on two things: what is known as “Molineux”
material, which deals with evidence of other alleged crimes not charged in the
case at hand; and “Sandoval” material, which covers what “bad acts” can be
brought up if a defendant chooses to take the stand and testify.

Godsoe said she thought the appeals court acted correctly in the Weinstein case.
In that trial, she said, the “Molineux” witnesses — three women who accused
Weinstein of wrongdoing that they said took place years before and after the
incidents for which he was charged, allegations that were not included in the
charges against him — should not have been called to testify.

She said the witnesses and testimony that Merchan has so far signaled he will
allow to be introduced in Trump’s trial seemed much closer to the criminal
allegations at hand.

Advertisement

Story continues below advertisement



Merchan last month ruled that testimony from or discussing Daniels and Karen
McDougal — who also alleged a relationship with Trump — could be allowed.
Merchan wrote that “evidence and testimony surrounding these individuals is
inextricably intertwined with the narrative of events and is necessary
background for the jury.”

On the other hand, the judge found that instances in which women accused Trump
of sexual misconduct or assault cannot be presented to jurors, describing them
as too flimsy and “very, very prejudicial.” And he decided that jurors would not
be shown the “Access Hollywood” recording, in which Trump can be heard
discussing grabbing women by their genitals, though he said he would allow
prosecutors to introduce emails from Trump campaign officials about the tape.

Judges need to carefully consider what evidence gets introduced, making sure
that the material is relevant and doesn’t prejudice jurors against a defendant,
according to Cheryl Bader, an associate law professor at Fordham Law School.
Merchan has tried to “thread the needle to lessen the risk of prejudice in this
case,” Bader wrote in an email, pointing to his decision on the “Access
Hollywood” video.

But, she wrote, the appeals court’s ruling in the Weinstein case offers “a
cautionary reminder in real time for the Trump prosecutors and the judge that
bad act evidence can be a risky proposition that could backfire on appeal.”



Merchan has said that if Trump testifies, prosecutors can ask him about issues
including a recent civil court case in which a judge concluded that he and
others carried out a years-long financial fraud; his violations of a gag order
in that case; and his two separate court losses to the writer E. Jean Carroll,
who sued him for defamation.

Legal experts said Merchan appeared to be on safe ground allowing Trump to be
asked about these topics.

Gillers said going forward, though, Merchan will have to keep the appeals
court’s decision in mind while he decides other issues about evidence and
testimony.

“Now that may not change the ruling,” Gillers said, “but he has to process it in
his decision.”


TRUMP NEW YORK HUSH MONEY CASE

Former president Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial is underway in New
York. Follow live updates from the trial.

Jury selection: A full jury of 12 jurors and six alternates has been seated.
Here’s what we know about the jurors.

The case: The investigation involves a $130,000 payment made to Stormy Daniels,
an adult-film actress, during the 2016 presidential campaign. It’s one of many
ongoing investigations involving Trump. Here are some of the key people in the
case.

The charges: Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business
records. Falsifying business records is a felony in New York when there is an
“intent to defraud” that includes an intent to “commit another crime or to aid
or conceal” another crime. He has pleaded not guilty. Here’s what to know about
the charges — and any potential sentence.

Can Trump still run for president? The short answer, legal experts said, is yes.
The U.S. Constitution does not forbid Trump, or anyone else, from serving as
president if convicted of a felony.

Show more
ChevronDown

Share
111 Comments
Trump New York hush money trial
HAND CURATED
 * Ex-National Enquirer publisher testifies about adult-film actress, others at
   Trump’s hush money trial
   April 25, 2024
   
   
   Ex-National Enquirer publisher testifies about adult-film actress, others at
   Trump’s hush money trial
   April 25, 2024
 * Who is David Pecker, first witness in Trump New York hush money case?
   April 22, 2024
   
   
   Who is David Pecker, first witness in Trump New York hush money case?
   April 22, 2024
 * The jurors in Trump’s New York hush money trial
   April 19, 2024
   
   
   The jurors in Trump’s New York hush money trial
   April 19, 2024

View 3 more stories



Loading...


Subscribe to comment and get the full experience. Choose your plan →


Advertisement

TOP STORIES
Politics
Reporting and analysis from the Hill and the White House
Analysis|Eighty percent of Ukraine-Israel bill will be spent in U.S. or by U.S.
military


Election 2024 latest news: Biden to highlight chips investments during New York
trip


Analysis|McConnell fights the isolationists


back
Try a different topic

Sign in or create a free account to save your preferences
Advertisement


Advertisement

Company
About The Post Newsroom Policies & Standards Diversity & Inclusion Careers Media
& Community Relations WP Creative Group Accessibility Statement Sitemap
Get The Post
Become a Subscriber Gift Subscriptions Mobile & Apps Newsletters & Alerts
Washington Post Live Reprints & Permissions Post Store Books & E-Books Print
Archives (Subscribers Only) Today’s Paper Public Notices Coupons
Contact Us
Contact the Newsroom Contact Customer Care Contact the Opinions Team Advertise
Licensing & Syndication Request a Correction Send a News Tip Report a
Vulnerability
Terms of Use
Digital Products Terms of Sale Print Products Terms of Sale Terms of Service
Privacy Policy Cookie Settings Submissions & Discussion Policy RSS Terms of
Service Ad Choices
washingtonpost.com © 1996-2024 The Washington Post
 * washingtonpost.com
 * © 1996-2024 The Washington Post
 * About The Post
 * Contact the Newsroom
 * Contact Customer Care
 * Request a Correction
 * Send a News Tip
 * Report a Vulnerability
 * Download the Washington Post App
 * Policies & Standards
 * Terms of Service
 * Privacy Policy
 * Cookie Settings
 * Print Products Terms of Sale
 * Digital Products Terms of Sale
 * Submissions & Discussion Policy
 * RSS Terms of Service
 * Ad Choices
 * Coupons