Day nine of former President Donald Trump's historic criminal trial in Manhattan concluded on Tuesday and will resume on Thursday. Trump was held in contempt by Judge Juan Merchan and fined $9,000 for violating a gag order, which Trump has long decried as an infringement of his free speech rights and an interference in the election via his inability to campaign for president.
Related:
During a recent hearing, Judge Merchan determined that if Trump opts to provide testimony in his own defense, prosecutors will be allowed to question him about his other recent civil legal findings, including New York Attorney General Letitia James' case stating he violated state law regarding representing the value of his assets, and a separate defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll, who alleged sexual assault.
In a recent interview on "The Megyn Kelly Show," esteemed attorney and RNC committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon explained how an appeal from Harvey Weinstein's criminal case, who was convicted in the same courtroom Trump now sits in, may impact and even help the former President.
Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction was overturned last week in an appeal based on the deprival of his right to take the stand, under the threat of being questioned about unrelated situations for which he was not facing prosecution.
Dhillon tells Kelly:
This is 'prior bad-act' kind of evidence that has got nothing to do with the case under prosecution, really. And the idea that somebody did something similar in the past, and he's a bad guy because of that, that's literally a backdoor way to just smear him in violation of due process. And New York's Highest Court has ruled that there is very clear precedent that says that you can't do that.
Dhillon goes on to explain that the appeal isn't about exonerating Weinstein, but for assuring fair trials and due process are upheld, saying:
So I think we can all agree Harvey Weinstein: total scumbag, okay? However, it's enough to prosecute him for the actual acts that they were able to get him on within the statute of limitations.
And, if he's retried they can still get a prosecution based on his disgusting behavior in the case at trial, as opposed to his disgusting behavior in a number of cases where the statute of limitations had passed, the witnesses' memories had faded. And you know he's going to be in jail for a long time, on both coasts, for his horrible behavior regardless of this. But, due process wins in this case.
Harmeet explains how Trump's case may be impacted, saying:
If this rule were applied in the New York case against President Trump this David Pecker stuff, which has now already tainted the jury, is reversible error and requires a retrial without this evidence there, and with a different judge [other than Juan Merchan] who's incredibly biased and under NY law had an obligation to recuse himself.
.@MegynKelly and @pnjaban on why the Harvey Weinstein conviction getting overturned could help Trump in New York.
— The Megyn Kelly Show (@MegynKellyShow) April 26, 2024
Watch and download the full episode here: https://t.co/cGhgE4RZbMhttps://t.co/F96HgI7HIW pic.twitter.com/gbkIFv310Z
Two lawyers who were both prosecutors in New York before going into private practice, Jim Walden and Deanna Paul, speaking to The Times, characterized the rulings allowing Trump to be questioned about the recent civil judgments against him as Judge Merchan putting "a strong case in peril."
The pair of lawyers say that Weinstien's appeal allows Trump a pathway to:
...get a conviction overturned while the ink hasn’t yet dried on the jury’s verdict.
The lawyers said:
Instead of relying on the strong case they have … prosecutors have indicated that they may be planning to cross-examine Trump on things that don’t, and shouldn’t, matter for this trial.
The pair wrote in an article published by CNN:
Trump is not on trial for being a morally bankrupt person. He is on trial for using false records to conceal election interference.
The conclusion is that allowing this kind of evidence into Trump's trial effectively "chills" his right to take the stand in his own defense, which Walden and Paul called "a strong disincentive to exercising this constitutional right," as an argument available for him to make on appeal. However, not all legal experts believe that the Weinstein appeal has direct implications in the Trump case.
Alternatively, if Trump proceeds and takes the stand, the ability to withstand scrutiny on appeal will be dependent on the scope of the questioning upon cross-examination. Theoretically, if Trump testifies in his defense it will likely create more appellate arguments.
Trump's legal team has filed numerous motions requesting Judge Merchan's recusal from the case or, alternatively, his removal from overseeing the criminal trial. If potential appeals ultimately find that Judge Merchan mishandled the proceedings, it would be seen by Trump's supporters as a form of poetic justice.
Read More:
Recusal Redux: Trump's Lawyers Renew Effort to Remove Judge in Hush Money Case Before Trial
Breaking: Harvey Weinstein 2020 Rape Conviction Overturned by NY Appeals Court
NEW: NY Court of Appeals Denies Trump's Bid to Delay Manhattan Trial
