Trump Notches Minor Wins in Hush Money Case as ‘Inflammatory and Unduly Prejudicial’ Evidence Blocked

Former President Donald Trump notched several small victories in his so-called “hush money” case in New York, with a judge siding with his request to prevent some “inflammatory and unduly prejudicial” evidence from being shown in court, although his bid to block testimony from Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels was rejected.

In a pair of orders issued on March 18, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan granted in part and denied in part President Trump’s request to exclude some testimony and evidence that the former president said his opponents want to exploit to undermine his 2024 presidential campaign.

President Trump, who has denied the affair, wanted to block Ms. Daniels’ testimony on the premise that it would unduly prejudice the jury and that she would try to use the trial to monetize her claims.

While the judge blocked the lie-detector results from Ms. Daniels, he rejected President Trump’s bid to block her testimony in its entirety.

The judge also partially sided with President Trump’s request to preclude evidence regarding the so-called “Access Hollywood” tape.

Related Stories

President Trump’s bid to block testimony from Mr. Cohen, his former personal attorney, was rejected by the judge. The former president argued in his request that Mr. Cohen had a history of lying and would likely lie again on the stand, though the judge rejected this rationale.

Also denied was President Trump’s request to preclude testimony from Dino Sajudin, a former Trump doorman who wrote a book with some salacious allegations.

Under New York state law, falsifying business records by itself is a misdemeanor. But if the records fraud was used to cover up or commit another crime, the charge could be elevated to a felony.

Mr. Bragg has charged President Trump with a felony falsifying records charge, which would require prosecutors to prove that it was done to hide the commission of a second crime.

Mr. Cohen has claimed he made $130,000 in a number of separate payments to Ms. Daniels via a shell company that was then reimbursed by President Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, and recorded as legal expenses.

The motion accused prosecutors of planning to put forward “improper arguments” and “inadmissible evidence” in order to bolster their “listless ‘zombie’ case.”

President Trump’s motion challenges the credibility of the witnesses, including calling Mr. Cohen a “liar” and suggesting Ms. Clifford would offer “false” testimony.

In his motion to block some evidence, President Trump sought to preclude Mr. Cohen’s testimony, arguing that he recently committed perjury and that “he plans to do so again at this criminal trial.”

“The Court should preclude Cohen’s testimony in order to protect the integrity of this Court and the process of justice,” President Trump’s attorneys argued.

However, in his March 19 order, the judge disagreed, saying that he was not aware of any basis for the “rationale that a prosecution witness should be kept off the witness stand because his credibility has been called into question.”

The former president also sought to block nearly 100 statements attributed to the former president that prosecutors have identified as potential exhibits but that Trump attorneys said “are largely irrelevant, stale, and cumulative.” President Trump’s legal team asked for a pre-trial hearing to determine the admissibility of each of the statements in question, which the judge denied.

While the judge denied this request, he said that prosecutors would have to “lay a proper foundation” for the introduction of the statements and be prepared to demonstrate why a given statement is to be introduced in court as an admission—unless it’s obvious on its face.