What portions of Trump’s deposition and the Access Hollywood tape were admitted at trial and how did the judge limit their use?

1. What portions of the Access Hollywood tape were admitted at the hush‑money criminal trial

For the Manhattan criminal case over alleged falsified business records, Merchan ruled that prosecutors could question witnesses about the 2005 “Access Hollywood” remarks and reference their effects on the campaign, but he found it would be prejudicial to play the actual tape for jurors, effectively admitting testimony about the tape’s content without admitting the video itself ^{[1] [2] [4]}. Merchan also left open the narrow possibility that the defense could “open the door” to the recording during trial, in which event he would reconsider playing the tape ^{[4] [1]}.

2. What portions of Trump’s deposition discussing the tape were used in civil proceedings

Separately, in the E. Jean Carroll civil litigation, Trump’s deposition in which he was shown the Access Hollywood tape and replied — including the remark that “if you look over the last million years… that’s been largely true” about celebrities’ conduct — was used in evidence and played to jurors, and the transcript of the tape became an exhibit in that trial, where judges and juries treated Trump’s own words as probative of credibility and possible confession‑style evidence ^{[5] [6] [7]}. That civil context differs from the hush‑money criminal trial: federal and state judges applied different admissibility rules and reached different conclusions about what could come in ^{[7] [2]}.

3. How the judge limited use of both the tape and deposition testimony

Merchan’s rulings emphasize classic rules against unduly prejudicial evidence: he barred playing the video at the criminal hush‑money trial because its inflammatory nature risked unfair prejudice on issues principally about documents and accounting practices, while still permitting limited witness examination about the tape’s political fallout and the campaign’s reaction ^{[1] [2] [8]}. He also denied prosecutors’ broader bid to introduce the dozens of sexual‑assault allegations linked to Trump as “prior bad acts,” labeling them “complete hearsay” without additional foundation and requiring prosecutors to return with narrower admissibility arguments before any such evidence could be considered ^{[3] [4]}. On the question of deposition evidence, reporting shows the deposition in the Carroll case was admitted and used by the plaintiff, but Merchan in the hush‑money context refused a blanket admission of a deposition that discussed the Access Hollywood tape unless proper limits were met — underscoring that admission depended on the case and the specific legal theory for which the statements were offered ^{[3] [5] [2]}.

4. Why the court drew these lines, and what that means for jurors

Merchan framed the distinction around relevance and risk: prosecutors argued the tape bore on intent and motive — for example, showing why hush money payments might have been made to blunt campaign‑threatening disclosures — but the court balanced that against the risk the lurid recording would distract jurors from the narrow documentary and accounting issues in the indictment, so the remedy was constrained questioning and testimony rather than the full video ^{[2] [9]}. The net effect is procedural containment: jurors in the criminal hush‑money case could hear about the political shock caused by the tape and see limited excerpts or transcripts in other proceedings, but they were not exposed to the raw video in the courtroom unless later ruled otherwise ^{[1] [10]}.