Trump's trial testimony offer could hinge on Harvey Weinstein ruling: attorney

"Yeah, I would testify," Donald Trump said days before his criminal hush money case began. "That's not a trial, that's a scam."

Since then, prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office are taking him at his word, filing a notice of Trump's past misconduct otherwise known as a "Sandoval notice".

Among the items include two defamations of E. Jean Carroll who accused him of sexual assault inside of a Manhattan department store in the 1990s, and years of widespread civil fraud conducted by his eponymous company.

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the White House is all that matters

Trump has denied wrongdoing and is aggressively appealing the verdicts.

The case is actually a centerpiece in convicted Hollywood studio head Harvey Weinstein, who is serving out a 23-year prison sentence for rape and sexual assault. (The exec was separately sentenced to 16 years after being convicted in Los Angeles of additional rape charges.)

According to Arthur Aidala, who defended Weinstein, the same issue facing Trump was riddling Weinstein, suggesting his client was “begging to tell his side of the story,” but that the Sandoval ruling forced him to remain silent.

On CNN, he suggested Weinstein's appeal on Sandoval could directly impact Trump's case.

"From a legal perspective because it's very timely and it is a little personal any minute, we're expecting the New York State Court of Appeals to hand down a ruling in the case of People's State of New York versus Harvey Weinstein, which my firm tried and argued," he said. "And that it's all on Sandoval. It's on that exact issue.

"And that court of appeals ruling is going to tell everyone in the state how much you can put in and what you cannot put in."

Aidala expects the ruling to be handed down by Tuesday. And when it comes he believes there's a good possibility "it could cause this trial judge [Merchan] to adjust his ruling depending on what the highest court in the state said."

A Sandoval hearing earned its name from a 1974 case, the People of the State of New York v. Augustin Sandoval, where Sandoval was facing a murder charge.

His defense attempted to convince the judge to keep under wraps their client's priors, such as a DUI because they claimed it would prejudice the jury.

The judge ultimately put restrictions on what prosecutors could bring up when trying Sandoval.

You can watch the video below or at the link.