We publish the objective news, period. If you want the facts, then sign up below and join our movement for objective news:


Latest News

Trump Gains Minor Win As Court Bars Access Hollywood Tape from Trial

 April 16, 2024

In a pivotal decision in Donald Trump's Manhattan trial, a judge has ruled against playing a controversial tape for jurors.

The Manhattan hush money trial of Donald Trump saw a judge blocking the infamous 2005 Access Hollywood tape from being shown to jurors, as the Daily Mail reports.

The trial stems from a hush money case involving the former president, centering around a tape recorded in 2005. Judge Juan Merchan presided over the case, making critical decisions on the evidence permitted.

Judge Merchan determined that jurors would not view the actual tape but could hear its contents through a full transcript read aloud in court. This decision followed considerable legal debates over the relevance and impact of the tape's content.

The tape captures Trump discussing his behavior towards women, statements which surfaced publicly before the 2016 presidential election, causing a significant drop in his poll numbers.

Impact of the Access Hollywood Tape on Legal Proceedings

Despite the setback in polling, Trump overcame the controversy and won the election. The tape's public release had been a significant blow to his campaign, which he navigated with claims that his words were mere "locker room talk."

The legal team representing the former president argued that playing the tape would be redundant since the jurors would already have access to its transcript. This argument partly influenced the judge's ruling.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass pushed for the tape to be shown, labeling it as an incendiary piece of evidence that could be seen as an admission of sexual assault. However, his request was ultimately denied.

Debate Over the Introduction of Additional Allegations

Additional allegations of sexual assault from the latter part of the 2016 campaign were also discussed. Judge Merchan ruled these as "complete hearsay" and thus inadmissible in court.

This exclusion was justified by the judge as necessary to prevent the trial from being prejudiced by claims he considered to be speculative and lacking solid evidence.

Further attempts by the prosecution to introduce reports of other accusations made against Trump following the tape's release were also blocked, with the judge labeling these as 'just gossip' and overly prejudicial.

Reactions and Arguments from Legal Representatives

In court, Steinglass reiterated the significance of the tape, arguing that it went beyond inappropriate remarks to describe actions akin to sexual assault. He stressed the importance of understanding the context in which Trump's comments were made.

According to Steinglass, the urgency shown by Trump's campaign to dismiss the tape's contents as trivial reflects a strategic response to control damage. He highlighted communications from figures like Steve Bannon and Michael Cohen, which focused on mitigating the fallout.

These emails, which surfaced in 2016, showed Bannon and Cohen strategizing over the tape's widespread impact and how to frame Trump's comments as innocuous.

Overview of Court's Decisions on Evidence and Testimonies

The complex legal battle showcases the intricate balance courts must maintain between prejudicial and probative evidence.

While some aspects of the prosecution's case were allowed, like the reading of the transcript, others, such as the introduction of additional accusers, were strictly prohibited.

The limitations placed on evidence aim to focus the jury's attention on the facts directly related to the case, avoiding the influence of external, unverified allegations.

In conclusion, the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump has navigated complex legal and ethical boundaries. Decisions to exclude certain pieces of evidence like the Access Hollywood tape from being played and dismissing additional assault claims aim to ensure a fair trial focused on substantiated facts. These rulings reflect the ongoing challenge of balancing impactful evidence with the need to avoid prejudicial influences in high-profile legal proceedings.