Alan Dershowitz Says ‘Game-Changer’ Testimony May Have Sunk Bragg’s Case Against Trump

Alan Dershowitz, a famed former law professor at Harvard University, remarked in an interview with Fox News‘s host Sean Hannity that the testimony by Bob Costello, Michael Cohen’s former attorney, was “a game-changer” and may have sunk any case that District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) had against Donald Trump.

Dershowitz, along with a host of legal scholars, has been critical of the Manhattan case against Trump even before Mr. Costello’s testimony. Dershowitz called the case in a newsletter ‘targeted injustice’ and ‘highly questionable’ in its legal theory.

In the aforementioned interview, Mr. Dershowitz maintained that Mr. Costello’s testimony has dramatic consequences for Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan District Attorney seeking to indict Mr. Trump. Mr. Dershowitz said “I think that Bragg now only has two possible results from that [Costello’s damning testimony]. 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. That would be unethical because of the testimony that Costello gave. Or he could say, ‘look, I have to drop the case.’”

Dershowitz admitted that “[h]e [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 followed this up by saying “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.”

Chaos Reigns Within District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s Office as Grand Jury Hearings Against Trump Postponed, Assistant D.A.’s ‘Shaking Their Heads’

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.”

This is not “breaking news.” This is standard practice. The 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… https://t.co/dCJVeNCCQD

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) March 22, 2023

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.”

They only care about convictions. Their perspective is too skewed to care about justice.

— Leslie McAdoo Gordon 🇺🇸 (@McAdooGordon) March 22, 2023

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.

No.

— Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) March 22, 2023

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.”