Judge Makes Decision On Witness In Trump Case
Former President Donald Trump’s legal team planned to call on a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission to testify in the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump. However, the expert’s testimony was not heard after Judge Juan Merchan limited the scope of what he could discuss.
The expert, Bradley Smith, wrote in an X post on Monday, “Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me.” He further explained the complexities of the Federal Election Campaign Act and the challenges of presenting it to a jury without a thorough understanding of technology and industry norms.
According to Smith, Judge Merchan has effectively created a situation where the jury is hearing about FECA law from Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who is the “star witness” of the prosecution. Cohen was allowed to go on at length about whether his activity violated FEC laws, which is far beyond the basics of what Smith was permitted to discuss.
Smith, who served as an FEC commissioner and chair between 2000 and 2005, had hoped to explain how the law has been interpreted in ways that may not be obvious to the average person. However, Merchan’s restrictions limited his ability to do so.
In an interview with the Washington Examiner, Smith discussed what he would have told the jury had he been allowed to testify. He planned to lay out the complexities of election laws. “The problem, of course, is that campaign finance law is extremely complex.
Just reading the statute to people isn’t really going to help them very much.” Judges have the responsibility of instructing juries about the law, but Smith believed that it was important to explain the nuances of the law to help the jury properly understand it.
Smith would have discussed the obscure but separate notion of personal use, a part of the law that prohibits the use of campaign funds for personal expenses. He also wanted to explain that the prohibition of using funds for personal use goes beyond specific situations, such as purchasing a country club membership or paying for vacation expenses. “We would have liked to flag that exception for the jury and talk a little bit about what it means,” Smith said. He also wanted to explain to the jury that the phrase “for the purpose of influencing an election” is not a subjective test and is instead an objective test.
The charges against Trump relate to payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. The Department of Justice and the FEC had previously declined to bring charges against Trump for this. However, Bragg upgraded the charges to 34 felony charges before the 2024 election. Bragg’s legal move could significantly impact the outcome of the case, potentially putting the former president at risk of criminal charges.
The former president’s legal team has argued that Bragg’s decision to upgrade the charges is politically motivated, as he is a Democrat who promised to go after Trump and his family. In contrast, Trump’s lawyers have argued that everyone involved in the payments believed they were lawful and that Trump had paid back Cohen for his role in the incident. Despite this, Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations, amongst other offenses, and this conviction could be used against Trump.
Both Trump’s legal team and the prosecution have presented their case, which means the jury will now begin deliberating. The jury comprises seven women and five men, and the prosecution has presented a total of 44 pieces of evidence and witness statements. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges, and as a result, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to provide evidence that convinces the jury of Trump’s guilt. The jury’s decision will have far-reaching implications, as it could determine Trump’s political and social future, as well as the precedent set for future election law violation cases.