This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/nyregion/trump-potential-indictment-criminal-charges.html

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
What We Know About the Indictment and Surrender of Donald Trump The Case Against Donald Trump: What Comes Next?
(about 16 hours later)
Donald J. Trump, the first American president to be charged with a crime, turned himself in to the authorities in Manhattan on Tuesday, appearing in the courtroom in the afternoon. Criminal charges against Donald J. Trump were unveiled on Tuesday, as prosecutors accused him of participating in a scheme to cover up potential sex scandals during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Though Mr. Trump was indicted last week, it was not until Tuesday’s hearing that charges were unsealed in the case, which is focused on the former president’s involvement in the payment of hush money to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who said she had an affair with him. Mr. Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, all of them focused on his involvement in the payment of hush money to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who said she had an affair with him.
A group of Mr. Trump’s supporters, including Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, held a rally outside the courthouse to protest the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, who brought the charges. Law enforcement officials from several agencies had spent weeks preparing for the possibility of protests or unrest. Mr. Trump was indicted last week, becoming the first current or former American president to be charged with a crime. His arraignment on Tuesday was the culmination of a nearly five-year investigation by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, and it also sets in motion a lengthy legal process. Any potential trial would likely be next year at the earliest.
Mr. Bragg began scrutinizing the hush money payments — which were made by Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s fixer at the time — last summer. Prosecutors impaneled a grand jury in January, and the jurors voted to indict Mr. Trump last Thursday. In the coming months, prosecutors and defense lawyers will exchange documents and evidence and file motions.
While the facts are dramatic and the indictment explosive, the case against Mr. Trump could hinge on an untested legal theory. A conviction is far from assured. Under New York law, the district attorney’s office must turn over most of its evidence to the defense — a process called discovery — within 65 days of a defendant’s first appearance in court.
Here’s what we know, and don’t know, about the criminal case against Mr. Trump: Prosecutors said at Tuesday’s hearing that discovery would not start until they and defense lawyers agreed on a protective order governing how the materials would be handled or discussed.
The indictment consists of 34 felony charges of falsifying business records in the first degree. Prosecutors are seeking to prohibit Mr. Trump from posting evidence on social media or otherwise providing it to the media. They have also asked that Mr. Trump only be allowed to review certain sensitive case material in his lawyers’ office and that he be prevented from using evidence in the case for political purposes. Mr. Trump’s lawyers objected to at least one of those requests and the protective order had not yet been finalized on Tuesday.
The charges stem from a payment that was made to Ms. Daniels, who in October 2016, during the final weeks of the presidential campaign, was trying to sell her story of an affair with Mr. Trump. One of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, Joseph Tacopina, said before Tuesday’s hearing that he anticipated filing a motion to dismiss the case — an attempt to have the charges thrown out entirely. After the arraignment, he said that it was too soon to talk about specific details.
At first, Ms. Daniels’s representatives contacted The National Enquirer to offer exclusive rights to her story. David Pecker, the tabloid’s publisher and a longtime ally of Mr. Trump, had agreed to look out for potentially damaging stories about him during the 2016 campaign, and at one point even agreed to buy the story of another woman’s affair with Mr. Trump and never publish it, a practice known as “catch and kill.” Mr. Trump’s lawyers might also seek to have the case moved to another court. The former president has written repeatedly on Truth Social, the social network that he founded, that he does not believe he can get a fair trial in Manhattan, a liberal enclave where he is deeply unpopular.
The judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan, set a deadline for Mr. Trump’s lawyers to file all their motions by Aug. 8. Prosecutors will have until Sept. 19 to respond.
Justice Merchan has set the next hearing in Mr. Trump’s case, when he will rule on motions, for Dec. 4.
Prosecutors said they would like a trial to begin in early January 2024, but Mr. Trump’s lawyers have said that is too soon and that they are looking toward a date later in the spring. Justice Merchan has not yet set a date.
The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, began scrutinizing hush money payment to Ms. Daniels — which was made by Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s fixer at the time — last summer. Prosecutors impaneled a grand jury in January, and the jurors voted to indict Mr. Trump last week.
At first, Ms. Daniels’s representatives contacted The National Enquirer in an attempt to sell the exclusive rights to her story. David Pecker, the tabloid’s publisher and a longtime ally of Mr. Trump, had agreed to look out for potentially damaging stories about him during the 2016 campaign, and at one point even agreed to buy the story of another woman’s affair with Mr. Trump and never publish it, a practice known as “catch and kill.”
But Mr. Pecker didn’t purchase Ms. Daniels’s story. Instead, he and the tabloid’s top editor, Dylan Howard, helped broker a separate deal between Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels’s lawyer.But Mr. Pecker didn’t purchase Ms. Daniels’s story. Instead, he and the tabloid’s top editor, Dylan Howard, helped broker a separate deal between Mr. Cohen and Ms. Daniels’s lawyer.
Mr. Cohen paid $130,000, and Mr. Trump later reimbursed him from the White House. Mr. Cohen paid $130,000, and Mr. Trump later reimbursed him after he had won the election and taken office.
In 2018, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to a number of charges, including federal campaign finance crimes involving the hush money. The payment, federal prosecutors concluded, amounted to an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign. In 2018, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to a number of federal crimes, including campaign finance violations involving the hush money. The payment, the federal prosecutors concluded, amounted to an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign.
In the days after Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea, the district attorney’s office opened its own criminal investigation into the matter. While the federal prosecutors were focused on Mr. Cohen, the district attorney’s inquiry would center on Mr. Trump.In the days after Mr. Cohen’s guilty plea, the district attorney’s office opened its own criminal investigation into the matter. While the federal prosecutors were focused on Mr. Cohen, the district attorney’s inquiry would center on Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump pleaded not guilty on Tuesday and then left the courthouse to travel back to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. The judge overseeing the case, Juan Merchan, will set a date for the next formal proceedings, which could be months away. In the meantime, prosecutors and defense lawyers will exchange documents and file motions. When pleading guilty in federal court, Mr. Cohen pointed the finger at his boss. It was Mr. Trump, he said, who directed him to pay off Ms. Daniels, a contention that federal prosecutors later corroborated.
Mr. Trump was walked through the routine steps of felony arrest processing in New York. Those prosecutors also raised questions about Mr. Trump’s monthly reimbursement checks to Mr. Cohen. They said in court papers that Mr. Trump’s company “falsely accounted” for the monthly payments as legal expenses and that company records cited a retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen. Although Mr. Cohen was a lawyer, and became Mr. Trump’s personal attorney after he took office, there was no such retainer agreement, and the reimbursement was unrelated to any legal services Mr. Cohen performed.
While it is standard for defendants arrested on felony charges to be handcuffed, an exception was made for the former president. He also did not have a mug shot taken.
Mr. Trump was accompanied at every step — from the moment he was taken into custody until his appearance before the judge in the imposing Criminal Courts Building — by armed agents of the U.S. Secret Service. They are required by law to protect him at all times.
After he was arraigned, he was released on his own recognizance, because the indictment contained only nonviolent felony charges. Under New York law, prosecutors cannot request that a defendant be held on bail in such cases.
When pleading guilty in federal court, Mr. Cohen pointed the finger at his boss. It was Mr. Trump, he said, who directed him to pay off Ms. Daniels, a contention that prosecutors later corroborated.
The prosecutors also raised questions about Mr. Trump’s monthly reimbursement checks to Mr. Cohen. They said in court papers that Mr. Trump’s company “falsely accounted” for the monthly payments as legal expenses and that company records cited a retainer agreement with Mr. Cohen. Although Mr. Cohen was a lawyer, and became Mr. Trump’s personal attorney after he took office, there was no such retainer agreement, and the reimbursement was unrelated to any legal services Mr. Cohen performed.
Mr. Cohen has said that Mr. Trump knew about the phony retainer agreement, an accusation that could form the basis of the case against the former president.Mr. Cohen has said that Mr. Trump knew about the phony retainer agreement, an accusation that could form the basis of the case against the former president.
In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.In New York, falsifying business records can amount to a crime, albeit a misdemeanor. To elevate the crime to a felony charge, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors must show that Mr. Trump’s “intent to defraud” included an intent to commit or conceal a second crime.
In this case, that second crime could be a violation of election law. While hush money is not inherently illegal, the prosecutors could argue that the $130,000 payout effectively became an improper donation to Mr. Trump’s campaign, under the theory that it benefited his candidacy because it silenced Ms. Daniels. Prosecutors do not have to charge Mr. Trump with that secondary crime, or prove that he committed it. They have not yet said definitively what crime or crimes they intend to rely on to escalate the charges to a felony level.
Convicting Mr. Trump or sending him to prison could be challenging. For one thing, Mr. Trump’s lawyers are sure to attack Mr. Cohen’s credibility by citing his criminal record. Prosecutors might counter that the former fixer lied years ago on behalf of his boss at the time and is now in the best position to detail Mr. Trump’s conduct. Convicting Mr. Trump or sending him to prison could be challenging. For one thing, Mr. Trump’s lawyers have already begun attacking Mr. Cohen’s credibility by citing his criminal record. Prosecutors may counter that the former fixer lied years ago on behalf of his boss at the time and is now in the best position to detail Mr. Trump’s conduct.
The case against Mr. Trump might also hinge on an untested legal theory. According to legal experts, New York prosecutors have never before combined the falsifying business records charge with a violation of state election law in a case involving a presidential election, or any federal campaign. If the prosecutors choose to use a state election law as a secondary crime — a possibility that Mr. Bragg mentioned on Tuesday — it is possible that a judge could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.
According to legal experts, New York prosecutors have never before combined the falsifying business records charge with a violation of state election law in a case involving a presidential election, or any federal campaign. Because this is uncharted territory, it is possible that a judge could throw it out or reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor.
Even if the charge is allowed to stand, it amounts to a low-level felony. If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory.Even if the charge is allowed to stand, it amounts to a low-level felony. If Mr. Trump were ultimately convicted, he would face a maximum sentence of four years, though prison time would not be mandatory.
Mr. Trump responded in a statement, calling the Manhattan grand jury vote “political Persecution and Election Interference at the highest level in history.”Mr. Trump responded in a statement, calling the Manhattan grand jury vote “political Persecution and Election Interference at the highest level in history.”
Mr. Trump’s statement echoed what has been an extraordinary and blistering effort to try to prevent Mr. Bragg from indicting him.Mr. Trump’s statement echoed what has been an extraordinary and blistering effort to try to prevent Mr. Bragg from indicting him.
Still, the statement was remarkable for its aggressive tone against the prosecution, and a signal of what else may come.Still, the statement was remarkable for its aggressive tone against the prosecution, and a signal of what else may come.
“The Democrats have lied, cheated and stolen in their obsession with trying to ‘Get Trump,’ but now they’ve done the unthinkable,” Mr. Trump wrote. “Indicting a completely innocent person.”“The Democrats have lied, cheated and stolen in their obsession with trying to ‘Get Trump,’ but now they’ve done the unthinkable,” Mr. Trump wrote. “Indicting a completely innocent person.”
He framed the investigation that resulted in the indictment as the latest in the long line of criminal inquiries he has faced, none of which have resulted in charges.He framed the investigation that resulted in the indictment as the latest in the long line of criminal inquiries he has faced, none of which have resulted in charges.
Michael Gold contributed reporting.Michael Gold contributed reporting.