"Sandoval" and “Molineaux” rulings in Trump's case do not mirror those in the Weinstein Appeal

[Dante]

Run, run, run Donald. Run away from what is coming. One report has:

Trump attorney brings up Court of Appeals decision overturning Weinstein's conviction​

Trump attorney Todd Blanche invokes the recent Court of Appeals decision overturning Harvey Weinstein's conviction.
Judge Juan Merchan says "the Weinstein decision really doesn't factor into this."

"Although prior bad act witnesses like the three who testified in the Weinstein trial are not completely uncommon, the appeals court ruled they were used to infer guilt, which is not allowed."

"The 4-3 ruling concluded that the Weinstein jury was potentially prejudiced against the defendant because the judge allowed women to testify about allegations that were not part of the case, purportedly to prove Weinstein’s intent."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/02/politics/harvey-weinstein-donald-trump-new-york-trial/index.html

I can see certain types of people already being propped to jump on this. Well good luck. "Sandoval" and “Molineaux” rulings by themselves are not grounds for appeals. It's how they are allowed by the Judge, and how they are used by the prosecutor.

"The appeals court decision centered on two key rulings by the Weinstein court trial judge that it found problematic: his “Molineaux” ruling admitting testimony from three other accusers, and his “Sandoval” ruling permitting prosecutors to ask Weinstein about a host of “loathsome” but irrelevant misconduct if the defendant chose to testify." Live updates: Donald Trump's hush money trial

We shall se, won't we.

 

[AHZ]

Run, run, run Donald. Run away from what is coming. One report has:

Trump attorney brings up Court of Appeals decision overturning Weinstein's conviction​

Trump attorney Todd Blanche invokes the recent Court of Appeals decision overturning Harvey Weinstein's conviction.
Judge Juan Merchan says "the Weinstein decision really doesn't factor into this."

"Although prior bad act witnesses like the three who testified in the Weinstein trial are not completely uncommon, the appeals court ruled they were used to infer guilt, which is not allowed."

"The 4-3 ruling concluded that the Weinstein jury was potentially prejudiced against the defendant because the judge allowed women to testify about allegations that were not part of the case, purportedly to prove Weinstein’s intent."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/02/politics/harvey-weinstein-donald-trump-new-york-trial/index.html

I can see certain types of people already being propped to jump on this. Well good luck. "Sandoval" and “Molineaux” rulings by themselves are not grounds for appeals. It's how they are allowed by the Judge, and how they are used by the prosecutor.

"The appeals court decision centered on two key rulings by the Weinstein court trial judge that it found problematic: his “Molineaux” ruling admitting testimony from three other accusers, and his “Sandoval” ruling permitting prosecutors to ask Weinstein about a host of “loathsome” but irrelevant misconduct if the defendant chose to testify." Live updates: Donald Trump's hush money trial

We shall se, won't we.

seems an appropriate comparison to me....

good on trumps lawyers, money well spent....

 

[Dante]

seems an appropriate comparison to me....

good on trumps lawyers, money well spent....

They are throwing everything they can at the proverbial wall. But this is preliminary on their part, as we do not yet know exactly what the prosecution will be using.

It's not a win for Trump. There is yet any reason for an appeal like Weinstein's. It will all depend on what happens during the trial, that has yet to happen.

 

[AHZ]

They are throwing everything they can at the proverbial wall. But this is preliminary on their part, as we do not yet know exactly what the prosecution will be using.

It's not a win for Trump. There is yet any reason for an appeal like Weinstein's. It will all depend on what happens during the trial, that has yet to happen.

it's a win for trump. like the universe.

 

[Dante]

it's a win for trump. like the universe.

Deteriorata - National Lampoon

For DJT

 

[Dante]

Back in January of 2020: "If Harvey Weinstein is convicted of sex crimes in New York, it may be because prosecutors were able to call as witnesses women who claim to be survivors even though they are not named in the charges."



May 2024:

CNN:
The message from the highest court in the state of New York was clear last week: No matter who they are or how unpopular they might be, defendants are entitled to a fair trial.

It was the central point in a decision handed by the New York State Court of Appeals overturning Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 rape conviction. The 4-3 ruling concluded that the Weinstein jury was potentially prejudiced against the defendant because the judge allowed women to testify about allegations that were not part of the case, purportedly to prove Weinstein’s intent.

“It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict,” the majority declared.

The appeals court decision centered on two key rulings by the Weinstein court trial judge that it found problematic: his “Molineaux” ruling admitting testimony from three other accusers, and his “Sandoval” ruling permitting prosecutors to ask Weinstein about a host of “loathsome” but irrelevant misconduct if the defendant chose to testify.

 

[para bellum]

This is why it's relevant:

"Under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged and, thus, allegations of prior bad acts may not be admitted against them for the sole purpose of establishing their propensity for criminality"

Pecker's testimony has nothing to do with the crime charged, which is falsification of business records. There are no business records with AMI. Trump never paid AMI any money for suppressing the McDougal or Doorman stories.

Bragg's "underlying crime" theory is an uncharged crime of "conspiracy to promote or prevent an election", and as such evidence of that is inadmissible .

"In either case, if the purpose of the proof is offered to show that the defendant acted in conformity with prior wrongs, acts or a general criminal bent, case law and the New York Rules of Evidence (e.g. 4.21, 6.17, 6.19), (People v Molineux 168 NY 264 [1901], People v Sandoval 34 NY3d 371 [1974]), forbid it. (See also People v Bradley 20 NY3d 128 [2012], People v Morris 21 NY3d 588 [2013]: evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible if its only purpose is to show that the defendant is likely to have committed the crime charged or to show bad character)."

https://www.assigned.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/MOLINEUX-AND-SANDOVAL-EVIDENCE.pdf

 

[BackAgain]

Run, run, run Donald. Run away from what is coming. One report has:

Trump attorney brings up Court of Appeals decision overturning Weinstein's conviction​

Trump attorney Todd Blanche invokes the recent Court of Appeals decision overturning Harvey Weinstein's conviction.
Judge Juan Merchan says "the Weinstein decision really doesn't factor into this."

"Although prior bad act witnesses like the three who testified in the Weinstein trial are not completely uncommon, the appeals court ruled they were used to infer guilt, which is not allowed."

"The 4-3 ruling concluded that the Weinstein jury was potentially prejudiced against the defendant because the judge allowed women to testify about allegations that were not part of the case, purportedly to prove Weinstein’s intent."

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/02/politics/harvey-weinstein-donald-trump-new-york-trial/index.html

I can see certain types of people already being propped to jump on this. Well good luck. "Sandoval" and “Molineaux” rulings by themselves are not grounds for appeals. It's how they are allowed by the Judge, and how they are used by the prosecutor.

"The appeals court decision centered on two key rulings by the Weinstein court trial judge that it found problematic: his “Molineaux” ruling admitting testimony from three other accusers, and his “Sandoval” ruling permitting prosecutors to ask Weinstein about a host of “loathsome” but irrelevant misconduct if the defendant chose to testify." Live updates: Donald Trump's hush money trial

We shall se, won't we.

You won’t see.

It would require an open mind.

Both Sandoval and Molineux share something in common which ignorant folks like The Dainty will never comprehend.

At their core they try to prevent the prospect that a jury might convict a defendant based on evidence of a supposed criminal propensity. But the applications are discretionary with the court. In some instances, the court is called upon to engage in a balancing test.

Whenever that discretionary call allows the prosecution to introduce prior crimes or bad acts evidence, it is subject to review by an appellate court. Was it an abuse of discretion under the facts of the case?

Trump has every right to now seek to highlight this during his trial. Among other things, it preserves the point for appeal if there is a conviction.

 

[para bellum]

Whenever that discretionary call allows the prosecution to introduce prior crimes or bad acts evidence, it is subject to review by an appellate court. Was it an abuse of discretion under the facts of the case?

I think Merchan is panicking.

He said the jury cannot be told that he held Trump in contempt- it would be "highly prejudicial".

After two weeks of prejudicial testimony that was not related to the charges...

Mistrial, lol.

 

[BackAgain]

I think Merchan is panicking.

He said the jury cannot be told that he held Trump in contempt- it would be "highly prejudicial".

After two weeks of prejudicial testimony that was not related to the charges...

Mistrial, lol.

I am all but 100% certain that despite any instructions a judge gives a jury not to discuss the case or to watch or read the news, most jurors do so anyway. Therefore, it seems incredibly unlikely to me that the jury doesn’t know that Merchan held Teumpnin contempt and has threatened him with the possibility of jail.

Other than that, I agree with your post.

 

[Dante]

You won’t see.

It would require an open mind.

Both Sandoval and Molineux share something in common which ignorant folks like The Dainty will never comprehend.

At their core they try to prevent the prospect that a jury might convict a defendant based on evidence of a supposed criminal propensity. But the applications are discretionary with the court. In some instances, the court is called upon to engage in a balancing test.

Whenever that discretionary call allows the prosecution to introduce prior crimes or bad acts evidence, it is subject to review by an appellate court. Was it an abuse of discretion under the facts of the case?

Trump has every right to now seek to highlight this during his trial. Among other things, it preserves the point for appeal if there is a conviction.

seriously poor analysis from a Welshing Liability Lawyer