OPINION | Views expressed in this article reflect the author's opinion.

Famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz says the testimony by Bob Costello, Michael Cohen’s former attorney, is “a game-changer” in the case against Trump.

Dershowitz says the testimony should sink the case against Trump.

A number of legal scholars have been critical of the Manhattan case against Trump.

Dershowitz called the case a “targeted injustice” and “highly questionable” in its legal theory.

“I think that Bragg now only has two possible results from that [Costello’s damning testimony],” he explained. “Number one, he can say, ‘alright, I’m going to try to make the case without Cohen.’”

“He cannot use Cohen as a witness anymore,” Dershowitz continued. “That would be unethical because of the testimony that Costello gave.”

“Or he could say, ‘look, I have to drop the case.’”

“[Mr. Bragg] may not be able to make it without Cohen. But if he can’t make it without Cohen, he can’t make it, because no ethical prosecutor is allowed to put on as a witness somebody who has told the lies and has contradicted himself so much.” Dershowitz said.

“I think that Bob Costello — it’s a game changer. I think maybe that’s the reason for the delay here. I think ethical experts are now telling Bragg, ‘wait a minute, you cannot use Cohen. But if you can’t make it without Cohen, you cannot bring this charge.”

There is a chance that Mr. Bragg’s prosecutorial misconduct over his bringing such a politicized and weak case to a grand jury may see him facing legal consequences. Yet, even with reports of him allegedly withholding exculpatory evidence from the grand jury, that may not provide enough legal reason to lead to a legal case. As Leslie McAdoo Gordon, a lawyer, explained on Twitter that “[t]he law does not require prosecutors to present any exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. There is no cross-examination of witnesses either. The purpose of the grand jury is to decide if there is enough evidence to bring a charge, not whether the person is guilty of it.”

— Advertisement —

More on this story:

Leslie Gordon also replied to someone mentioning that such evidence ought to ethically be presented given that the prosecutor should be concerned about justice rather than obtaining a conviction. She wrote that “They [Bragg and his ilk] only care about convictions. Their perspective is too skewed to care about justice.”

Tracy Beanz, the editor-in-chief of the online magazine UnCover DC, seconded Gordon’s stance and noted on Twitter that in New York state the prosecution had no legal obligation to disclose such evidence to a grand jury.

This stance is reinforced by a 2021 piece in the New York Law Journal which notes that “there is no legal duty on prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to a grand jury.” If, however, perjury by the prosecution occurred then this would be grounds for a dismissal of the case. As noted by Nolo, a self styled legal encyclopedia and publishing company, “[i]n most states, prosecutors can’t present half-truths to grand juries.”