In the Trump “hush money” case, can the prosecutor cross-examine Trump about his prior bad acts if Trump takes the stand in his own defense? The trial judge will decide this in what is called a Sandoval hearing.
In New York, if a defendant testifies, the defendant may be cross-examined concerning prior criminal, vicious or immoral acts which tend to impugn the defendant’s credibility? People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 376, 314 N.E.2d 413, 417, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 854 (1974). However, the prosecution is prohibited from cross-examining the defendant to show the defendant’s criminal character or propensity.
The trial court is to conduct a hearing prior to the defendant taking the stand and rule upon the admissibility of the prior bad acts that the prosecution intends to ask about during cross of the defendant. In Sandoval, the court laid out the court’s two-step inquiry: (1) whether the evidence is the type of conduct which reflects upon credibility at all and (2) whether the risk of prejudice is so great that the evidence should be excluded notwithstanding its relevance. Sandoval grants the trial court broad discretion in deciding whether to permit the inquiry during cross.
Click here to read the Sandoval Notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment