Trump trial updates: Appeals court denies defense's bid for judge's recusal
The defense rested its case Tuesday without testimony from Donald Trump.
Former President Donald Trump is on trial in New York City, where he is facing felony charges related to a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. It marks the first time in history that a former U.S. president has been tried on criminal charges.
Trump last April pleaded not guilty to a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment his then-attorney Michael Cohen made to Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
Top headlines:
What to know about the hush money case
READ MORE: Here's what you need to know about the historic case.
Attorney argue over Costello testifying
In a sidebar, Trump's attorney told Judge Merchan want to use ex-Cohen attorney Robert Costello to push back on Cohen's claims that he was worried about speaking to Costello because he was worried it would get back to Trump.
"That's not Mr. Costello's recollection," defense attorney Emil Bove said. "To rebut the government's pressure campaign theory -- that's why this evidence is admissible."
Bove told Merchan that Costello would testify that Cohen told him that Trump had no awareness of the Stormy Daniels' hush money payment.
Earlier today, Cohen testified that he lied to Costello about Trump's awareness because he did not trust Costello.
"The whole purpose was to make Mr. Trump sound threatening," Bove said.
"I don't think so," Merchan responded.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger argued that defense lawyers did not include Costello on their witness list or provide the exhibits related to his testimony.
"Rebutting the pressure campaign should have been part of their direct case," Hoffinger said.
Merchan called a brief recess to consider the arguments but ordered the parties to remain in the courtroom.
Prosecution seeks to limit Costello's testimony
The prosecution objected to the defense calling Robert Costello, Michael Cohen's former attorney to the stand.
Out of earshot of the jury, prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked Judge Merchan to omit Costello or limit his testimony to two questions.
"I think there's very limited testimony that's permissible here if at all," Hoffinger said.
The defense said it wants to use Costello to rebut Cohen's testimony about a "pressure campaign" carried out against him not to flip on Trump after Cohen made Stormy Daniels payment.
Costello, a longtime Trump ally, testified before the grand jury in March 2023 as an exculpatory witness at the request of Trump's attorneys.
Defense calls ex-Cohen attorney Robert Costello
On cross-examination, prosecutor Becky Mangold quizzed defense witness Daniel Sitko about the technical process for putting together the summary chart from cell phone records.
The defense attempted to show through the call summary that Cohen and his then-attorney Robert Costello spoke 75 times. On cross-examination, the defense paralegal conceded it wasn't quite that many.
After Sitko stepped off the witness stand, the defense called Robert Costello himself.
Defense witness introduces evidence regarding phone calls
The defense called Daniel Sitko, a paralegal for defense attorney Todd Blanche.
Sitko introduced a summary chart of phone calls between Michael Cohen, his one-time attorney Robert Costello, and the law firm of Davidoff Hutcher & Citron.
Parties argue about Trump's presence at 2015 meeting
Discussing the August 2015 meeting in Trump Tower where prosecutors say Trump, Michael Cohen and then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker agreed to the criminal conspiracy, defense attorney Emil Bove argued Trump's "mere presence" at a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower with David Pecker and Michael Cohen where the alleged conspiracy was hatched "could very much be part of the defense here."
Bove said "there's nothing criminal about that at all," despite prosecutors arguing it's where the catch-and-kill scheme originated.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo argued there is no way the jury could interpret the meeting as a "high minded conversation about democracy."