Watch as George Santos arrived at court on Long Island on Tuesday, 13 August, for a hearing ahead of his corruption trial.
The former congressman, who was expelled from the US House of Representatives, is on trial on charges that include defrauding campaign donors.
Mr Santos, who was elected in 2022, represented parts of Queens and Long Island.
He became the sixth lawmaker in history to be expelled from the House of Representatives in December and dropped a bid to return to Congress as an independent in April.
Prosecutors have accused Mr Santos of a range of crimes including lying to Congress about his wealth, collecting unemployment benefits while actually working, and using campaign contributions to pay for such personal expenses as designer clothing.
He pleaded not guilty to a revised indictment in October.
Aggravated identity theft charges pertain to allegations that Mr Santos used campaign donors’ credit card information to make repeated contributions they hadn’t consented to.
Prosecutors also he also tried to hide the true source of the money — and evade campaign contribution limits — by listing the source of the donations as some of his relatives and associates, without their assent.
Mr Santos’ lawyers argue that the aggravated identity theft charges were invalid as, in the defense’s view, the allegations amounted only to overcharging credit card accounts that had been willingly provided to him.
Mr Santos has requested a partially anonymous jury; his lawyers argued in court filings last week that individual jurors’ identities should only be known by the judge, the two sides and their attorneys due to the high level of attention around the case and their client. They said the publicity poses “significant risks” to “juror safety, privacy, and impartiality.”
“The extensive and largely negative media coverage, combined with the political nature of the case, creates a substantial risk that jurors could face harassment or intimidation if their identities are known, potentially compromising the fairness of the trial,” Santos’ lawyers wrote.
“Additionally, the mere risk of public ridicule could influence the individual jurors ability to decide Santos’ case solely on the facts and law as presented in Court.”
