The unhinged outburst the Trump trial judge DIDN’T want you to see: Police were ordered to clear the court… but ALAN DERSHOWITZ stayed – and witnessed the most shocking moment of his 60-year legal career

The stench of deceit hung in the air as I sat in the front row of a Manhattan courtroom.

Sitting on the witness stand, just feet from me, I watched in disbelief as Michael Cohen told the jury one apparent lie after another.

When asked by prosecutors whether he would benefit financially if Donald Trump were convicted, Cohen denied this.

That is demonstrably incorrect.

Cohen is shopping around for a reality TV show to capitalize on his newfound fame. He has admitted to making more than $3 million from anti-Trump books and podcasts and sells merchandise depicting the former president behind bars.

All of these ventures would be undermined by a Trump acquittal.

Then there’s Cohen’s admission that he stole tens of thousands of dollars from the Trump organizations by deceptively overcharging for his services.

I wouldn’t buy a used car from this man, let alone rely on his testimony to send a presidential candidate to jail.

Cohen is shopping around for a reality TV show to capitalize on his newfound fame. He has admitted to making more than $3 million from anti-Trump books and podcasts and sells merchandise depicting the former president behind bars.

Sitting on the witness stand, just feet from me, I watched in disbelief as Michael Cohen told the jury one apparent lie after another.

Most importantly, I have not heard any evidence that Trump committed a crime by falsely reporting his legal fees to conceal a hush money payment to protect his 2016 presidential campaign.

The only testimony that even remotely speaks to this accusation is Cohen’s claim that Trump approved an alleged payoff to Stormy Daniels during a 96-second phone call.

But Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, got Cohen to admit that that phone call was, at least in part, about a prankster harassing Cohen.

“One minute and 36 seconds was enough time for you to update… about all the harassing phone calls and the update on Stormy Daniels?” Blanche asked.

“I believe I also spoke with Mr. Trump and told him that everything regarding Stormy Daniels is being worked on and will be resolved,” Cohen responded.

“We don’t ask for your faith,” Blanche replied. “This jury doesn’t want to hear what you think happened.”

Indeed they don’t.

They want to hear the truth.

In my sixty years of practicing law, teaching, and writing about the American legal system, I have never seen such a weak criminal fraud case.

Whether a jury of twelve New Yorkers will believe this fabulist and admitted thief is impossible to say. But I have no doubt that the judge in this trial should not allow the trial to continue.

Instead, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan should throw the case out of court — ruling that Cohen’s testimony is so unreliable that the jury shouldn’t even consider it.

“We don’t ask for your faith,” Blanche replied. “This jury doesn’t want to hear what you think happened.” Indeed they don’t. They want to hear the truth.

New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan should throw it out of court — and rule that Cohen’s testimony is so unreliable that the jury shouldn’t even consider it.

This judge has the power to do just that. “If the charges aren’t legitimate, he should acquit,” to paraphrase a mantra from the OJ Simpson case.

But he won’t do that.

Because even more shocking than the pathetic flaws of this case is the palpable bias this judge harbors against Trump.

After the defense called their star witness, former Cohen legal counsel Robert Costello, Judge Merchan issued ruling after ruling denying Costello the ability to speak — inexplicably dismissing his testimony as hearsay and irrelevant.

I and other lawyers watching in the audience were shocked.

Under the 6th Amendment, a suspect has the right to confront his accuser and this is done through the testimony of others.

Judge Merchan denied Trump that right by unfairly limiting Costello’s testimony.

The judge only really revealed his apparently unhinged bias against Trump when he exploded after Costello, himself a lawyer, expressed his surprise at the puzzling statements.

Merchan lost control of the perceived contempt and angrily ordered the court police to clear the room.

I was never asked to leave, so I stayed. I wish the audience could have seen what I witnessed – because I believe the judge’s bias against Trump came through loud and clear.

“Are you raising your eyebrows at me?” Merchan shouted at Costello. “Were you staring at me?”

He sounded like a paranoid schizophrenic. A nut on the street. The psychopath in the movie Taxi Driver.

After the defense called their star witness, former Cohen legal counsel Robert Costello (above, right in sketch), Judge Merchan issued ruling after ruling denying Costello the ability to speak — inexplicably dismissing his testimony as hearsay and irrelevant.

I and other lawyers watching in the audience were shocked. Under the 6th Amendment, a suspect has the right to confront his accuser and this is done through the testimony of others.

The judge revealed his apparently unhinged bias against Trump when he exploded after Costello, himself a lawyer, expressed surprise at the puzzling statements.

Merchan then threatened to exclude all of Costello’s testimony against Cohen from the trial.

I was stunned.

First, Costello’s behavior was not egregious and he may act surprised.

But more than that, the idea that a judge would punish Trump by denying him the opportunity to present evidence about a witness’s actions is ridiculous. It’s unethical. It’s unconstitutional.

Trump is not responsible for Costello’s behavior.

It was one of the most shocking displays of bias by a judge I have ever seen.

Despite all this, can Trump be convicted? Of course he can.

The Manhattan pool is largely made up of people who voted against Trump and don’t want him elected in 2024.

But the weakness of the prosecution’s case and the overwhelming bias this judge shows against Trump will provide him with an excellent opportunity to appeal if he is found guilty.

The only remaining question is whether a New York State court will accept a request for an expedited appeal – so that any apparent miscarriage of justice can be reversed before the American people have cast their votes.