Soon after the election, Trump will find himself in federal court defending one of his business ventures, Trump University, against fraud charges. The trial, scheduled to begin on November 28, will be overseen by Judge Gonzalo Paul Curiel, who Trump has said is incapable of being impartial in the case because of his Mexican heritage. (Paul Ryan described Trump’s rant as “textbook definition of a racist comment.”)
On Friday, Trump’s lawyer filed a motion to exclude from the trial everything the candidate has said during the presidential campaign, among many many other things.
Trump’s lawyers also seem to be concerned about the Access Hollywood video (“audio and video recordings made or publicized during the campaign”) and accusations of sexual assault (“Personal conduct accusations”) making their way into the trial.
It makes sense to exclude much of this material. As a general rule, only evidence that is relevant to the case and more probative than prejudicial can be admitted. It’s hard to see how the Access Hollywood video, his criticism of Hillary Clinton’s Syria policy, or his tweets about CNN are relevant to this fraud trial.
Nevertheless, Trump’s lawyers are concerned that, should Trump’s conduct during the campaign be introduced at trial, it would constitute improper “character evidence” about “wrongs” perpetrated by Trump.
But the motion is also almost certainly overbroad. At times, Trump has directly addressed the Trump University fraud trial — not only to attack Judge Curiel, but also to comment on the facts of the case. These comments would be relevant to the case, both to establish the facts of what happened and to rebut conflicting claims made at trial.
On June 7, for example, his campaign issued a lengthy statement about the specific facts of the Trump University fraud trial and the experience of the plaintiffs. There is no reason why, just because it’s associated with a campaign, this kind of material should be excluded.
Some of his tweets also are relevant to the facts at issue in the trial.
The phony lawsuit against Trump U could have been easily settled by me but I want to go to court. 98% approval rating by students. Easy win
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 3, 2016
The plaintiffs and some of Trump’s former employees allege that Trump University was a “giant ripoff.” This is how Ronald Schnackenberg, a former salesman for Trump University, described his experience in an affidavit.
Will Trump ultimately be held accountable for this conduct? Will the jury be able to hear what Trump said about Trump University during the campaign?
We’ll find out, staring next month.