The midst of Donald Trump’s civil fraud trial in New York City, expert witness Steven Laposa, called by the defense, is under fire for conflicting statements during cross-examination, as reported by Raw Story on Friday, November 17, 2023.
Laposa, a real estate expert, aimed to challenge the state’s interpretation of Trump’s financial documents, particularly questioning the valuation of Trump’s properties. He argued that relying on market value, as the state did, would lead to undervaluation compared to investment value.
This dispute holds significance in Trump’s defense against the $250 million complaint filed by Attorney General Letitia James, accusing him of inflating asset values to deceive lenders and investors.
More Read
While Trump denies any wrongdoing, a judge has already found him liable for fraud, and the current trial focuses on determining damages.
During cross-examination, State Attorney Louis Solomon presented Trump’s financial document, revealing a note stating, Assets are stated at their estimated current values. Laposa’s response, claiming it was the first time he had seen it, introduces a contradiction, raising doubts about the consistency of his testimony.
This development complicates an already contentious legal battle, where Laposa’s testimony is central to disputing the state’s claims.
As the trial unfolds, these contradictions will likely be closely examined, impacting public and expert perceptions of witness credibility and the overall integrity of Trump’s defense.
Legal analysts anticipate the prosecution will leverage this inconsistency to strengthen their argument of Trump’s deliberate manipulation of asset values.
Given the judge’s prior finding of liability, Trump’s defense faces additional pressure to present a compelling case to mitigate potential damages.
Beyond specific fraud allegations, the trial sheds light on the broader scrutiny of Trump’s business practices, symbolizing the legal challenges following his presidency.
As the proceedings continue, Laposa’s contradictions reveal the complexities of unraveling financial intricacies in high-profile legal battles, leaving the trial’s outcome a subject of intense speculation and interest.
