Judge Juan Merchan has allowed prosecutors from Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office to prove a federal campaign-finance crime against former president Donald Trump by relying on blatantly inadmissible evidence — the guilty pleas of Michael Cohen and a non-prosecution agreement David Pecker struck with the Justice Department. ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
Judge's Decision: Judge Juan Merchan allowed prosecutors to use inadmissible evidence against Donald Trump, including Michael Cohen's guilty pleas and David Pecker's non-prosecution agreement.
Inadmissible Evidence:
Michael Cohen: Trump's former lawyer, pleaded guilty to two Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) felonies related to non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) during the 2016 presidential campaign.
David Pecker: Former American Media Inc. CEO, entered a non-prosecution agreement for fear of indictment under FECA.
NDAs Context: The NDAs, involving payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, were arranged by Cohen, with Pecker involved in McDougal's payment and Cohen paying Daniels himself.
Legal Argument: NDAs are not campaign expenditures under FECA. They could have been relevant in many non-political contexts (e.g., to protect Trump's reputation).
Cohen's Guilty Pleas: Cohen's guilty pleas were driven by his need to avoid prison for unrelated crimes (bank fraud and tax evasion), and these pleas are legally insufficient as evidence against Trump.
Judge's Ruling on Evidence: Judge Merchan did not allow a former FEC commissioner to testify, which would have clarified the legal basis for campaign expenditures, yet allowed Cohen and Pecker, who lack expertise in election law, to testify.
Prosecutorial Strategy: The prosecution used Cohen's guilty pleas to imply Trump's guilt, despite these pleas being inadmissible against Trump. The judge allowed this strategy, which the author criticizes as unfair and prejudicial.
Conclusion: Cohen's guilty pleas are worthless as evidence and the judge's decision undermines the fairness of the trial.
Source: