The judge in Donald Trump’s case said he will begin the first criminal trial against the disgraced former president on March 25.
In a significant development concerning the legal proceedings involving former President Donald Trump, the presiding judge announced that the trial is slated to commence on March 25. This announcement marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing scrutiny surrounding Trump’s actions during his tenure in office.
Judge Juan Merchan denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the charges at the beginning of the hearing. “At this point, I can inform you that we’re moving ahead with jury selection on March 25,” he told the court. He later said he expected the trial to last about six weeks.
Judge Merchan decided to kick off the trial in late March following a series of pre-trial hearings and procedural discussions.
Trump watched from a defense table in Manhattan criminal court as New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan said he would go forward with the trial on charges that Trump falsified business records during the heat of the 2016 political campaign to keep secret a past sexual liaison with an adult-film star.
Defense attorney Todd Blanche pushed back, saying the defense team needs more time to prepare and that a trial will unfairly intervene with the former president’s quest to return to the White House.
Blanche also argued that Trump is scheduled for trial in late May in Florida on charges of illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing government attempts to retrieve them. The judge in that case, however, has already indicated that she may delay the proceedings to allow lawyers more time to review highly classified evidence.
“We have been faced with extremely compressed and expedited schedules in each and every one of those trials,” Blanche said.
In response, Merchan told Blanche — who is representing Trump in multiple cases — that he had “proceeded at your own peril” by taking up the cases and the work demands associated with them.
When Blanche tried to argue further, Merchan snapped, “Stop interrupting me please. … I’ve tried to work with you.”
Merchan said at the hearing Thursday that he has been conferring with the D.C. trial judge, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, and that after consulting with her, “we’re moving ahead to jury selection on March 25.”
The discussion in the courtroom turned to jury selection, including what questions to ask of potential jurors to ensure that they can judge fairly in a trial that has no historical precedent and in which the defendant is a deeply polarizing public figure.
The case, which has garnered nationwide attention, centers around the circumstances surrounding a payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016.
A grand jury voted to indict Trump on March 30, 2023, charging him with 34 felony counts of falsification of business records.
The charges in the case are related to Trump’s alleged misclassification of business records for reimbursement payments to Michael Cohen, his former lawyer and fixer.
Cohen paid the adult-film actress $130,000 during the 2016 presidential campaign to keep her quiet about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump years earlier. Cohen pleaded guilty and served 15 months in prison, which included home confinement.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has accused Trump of reimbursing Cohen for that hush money with payments described as legal fees, when in fact they were a campaign expense meant to keep Trump’s presidential bid untarnished by tawdry allegations of a tryst.
Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records, a felony in New York where there is an intent to defraud that includes intent to “commit another crime or to aid or conceal” a crime.
In announcing the charges, Bragg said the goal of Trump’s scheme was to cover up violations of New York election law, which makes it a crime to conspire to illegally promote a candidate. Bragg also said the $130,000 exceeded the federal campaign contribution cap.
Trump has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty. He has repeatedly accused Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg of pursuing the case for political gain.
There is still a chance the New York trial could end up taking a back seat to a separate federal case against Trump for allegedly conspiring to obstruct the results of the 2020 election.
Those charges, filed in Washington, have been hung up for months in an appeals fight over Trump’s claims of presidential immunity. While one appeals court ruled unanimously against him, Trump may still try to make that argument to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could keep that trial on hold for weeks or months more.
Since leaving the White House, Trump has faced mounting legal challenges, including inquiries into his financial dealings, potential obstruction of justice, and allegations that he illegally kept classified documents and illegally worked to prevent them from being returned to the government.
The Manhattan trial’s start date represents a critical juncture in the legal battle, offering both sides an opportunity to present their arguments and evidence before the court.
Legal experts anticipate a high-profile and closely watched trial,
Speaking outside the courtroom before the hearing got underway, Trump said the case represented a “great double standard” and “election interference.” He acknowledged he was trying to delay the beginning of the trial, and said the proceedings were taking him off the campaign trail.
“We want delays, obviously, I’m running for election,” he said. “How can you run for election when you’re sitting in a courthouse in Manhattan all day long? I’m supposed to be in South Carolina right now.”
Key topics expected to be addressed in other courtrooms include Trump’s handling of sensitive documents, his alleged role in inciting the January 6 Capitol riot, and his efforts to steal the 2020 presidential election.
The announcement of the trial date comes amidst a backdrop of heightened political tension and partisan division in the United States.
Trump, a polarizing figure who continues to wield considerable influence within the Republican Party, has vocally denounced the legal proceedings as politically motivated attacks aimed at tarnishing his legacy.
Meanwhile, proponents of accountability and legal justice view the upcoming trial as a crucial step toward holding powerful figures accountable for their actions, so the outcome of the trial holds significant implications for the broader trajectory of American democracy.
With the eyes of the nation fixed on the courtroom, the trial is expected to serve as a barometer of the country’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring accountability for those in positions of authority.
As the hearing came to an end, Blanche once more tried to convince Merchan to change his mind about a late March trial. “We strenuously object to what is happening in this courtroom,” he said.
“President Trump is going to now spend the next two months working on this trial instead of out on the campaign trail,” Blanche continued, adding that “is something that should not happen in this country.”
Merchan, who grew increasingly impatient with Blanche during the hearing, urged him to get to the point.
“What is your legal argument?” the judge asked.
“That is my legal argument,” Blanche insisted.
“That is not a legal argument,” the judge said as he ended the hearing.
Discover more from NJTODAY.NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.