In a scathing rebuke on Wednesday, a Manhattan judge criticized Michael Cohen’s former prosecutor for a significant error in court documents, where false cases generated by artificial intelligence (AI) were inadvertently included.
Despite the “embarrassing” and “negligent” mistake made by Cohen’s then-partner, David Schwartz, Manhattan federal judge Jesse Furman refrained from imposing sanctions, attributing the error to Schwartz’s “extreme carelessness” and deeming it an honest mistake.
Judge Furman expressed that while the inclusion of non-existent cases was a display of carelessness and potential negligence, determining whether it was intentional bad faith was inconclusive.
Following the revelation that Schwartz had unknowingly incorporated AI-generated cases sourced from Google Bard, Cohen, known as Donald Trump’s former “fixer,” admitted to the oversight.
Schwartz, no longer representing Cohen, received validation from retired judge Barry Kamins, who stated that the judge recognized the error as unintentional on Schwartz’s part.
In response to the court’s decision, Schwartz opted not to provide further commentary, indicating that the ruling itself was self-explanatory.
After Cohen’s admission to various offenses, including tax evasion and campaign finance violations in 2018, a pact was made between Schwartz and Cohen to conceal the error.
Subsequently, during Trump’s civil fraud trial in Manhattan, Cohen’s testimony raised suspicions of perjury, as noted by Judge Furman, who highlighted discrepancies in Cohen’s statements during different legal proceedings.
Schwartz emphasized that Cohen’s testimony aimed to bolster his plea for early release, showcasing his remorse and commitment to abiding by the law.
Contrary to Schwartz’s portrayal of Cohen’s testimony, Judge Furman criticized the attempt to spin it as a demonstration of a commitment to legal compliance, given Cohen’s acknowledgment of dishonesty.
While Cohen’s attorney, Danya Perry, hailed the judge’s decision as a victory for Cohen due to the absence of sanctions, the insinuation of perjury by Cohen was refuted. Perry cited the coercive nature of plea deals as a factor leading defendants to admit to crimes they did not commit under duress.
In contrast, Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, applauded the judge’s stance, asserting that Cohen’s perjury warranted prosecution, casting doubt on Cohen’s credibility as a witness against Trump.
Trump’s legal team contended that Cohen’s criminal record and history of dishonesty undermined the reliability of his testimony, as he had been convicted and sentenced for his felonies.
The Manhattan US Attorney’s Office, responsible for prosecuting Cohen, declined to provide a statement on the matter.
