In the official record, the case is known as “People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump,” but so far the people have the stronger case. They have insider witnesses, a favored jury, and a creepy crowd. Facts about presidential candidates, pay, and porn stars.
On Monday, prosecutors will formally refer the case to 12 pivotal jurors, launching the first indictment of an American president. The trial, which could be branded as a felony as Mr. Trump makes another run for the White House, will reverberate across the country and challenge the durability of the justice system, with Mr. Trump’s attacks as no other defendant has been able to. It will be tested.
District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg has amassed a mountain of evidence, but a conviction is far from certain. Over the next six weeks, Trump’s lawyers will exploit three glaring weaknesses: the credibility of key witnesses, the president’s liability and the legal complexity of the case.
Prosecutors will seek to circumvent these vulnerabilities and dazzle jurors with tales of politics and sex, while confronting savvy defendants who have avoided legal consequences for decades. They will also seek to improve the credibility of key witness Michael D. Cohen. He is Trump’s former fixer and has previously pleaded guilty to federal crimes for paying off porn star Stormy Daniels.
Daniel J. Horwitz, a veteran defense attorney who previously prosecuted white-collar cases in the Manhattan district attorney’s office, said prosecutors can expect to corroborate Mr. Cohen’s story as much as possible.
“Prosecutors have layer upon layer of evidence to support Michael Cohen’s statements,” Horwitz said.
Nearly six years after Mr. Daniels’ pay entered the national consciousness and briefly jeopardized Mr. Trump’s presidency, both sides will make their case and compete in interpretations of evidence in opening statements Monday. is.
But when Manhattan prosecutors previewed the case to potential jurors last week, they did not highlight either the payback that secured Ms. Daniels’ silence or the sex scandal covered up in the process. One of the prosecutors, Joshua Steinglass, instead narrowed the trial to the underlying issues. “This case is about the rule of law and whether Donald Trump violated the rule of law.”
Mr. Steinglass’s boss, Mr. Bragg, offered a more lofty interpretation, labeling Mr. Trump’s actions as election interference. Trump claims he orchestrated a scheme to cover up a smoldering sex scandal from voters heading to the polls in 2016. Three hush-money deals rewarded people who had stories to tell — stories that could have derailed Mr. Trump’s candidacy.
Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors will likely try to use his 2016 campaign strategy against Mr. Trump. The tactics that led to his victory will be admitted into evidence and reviewed far beyond the courtroom. Aides and friends who lied on Trump’s behalf are scheduled to take the stand to testify against him.
Among them is David Pecker, the tabloid publisher who bought and killed damaging stories about Trump. Hope Hicks, the publicist who tried to spin reporters; and Mr. Cohen, the fixer who paid Mr. Daniels. Mr. Pecker, who ran the company that owned the National Enquirer newspaper, is scheduled to go to trial first and will recount to jurors several conversations he had with Mr. Trump about hush money, according to people familiar with the plan. He plans to do so.
Trump faces up to four years in prison on 34 felonies, but it’s not just his freedom that is at risk. If he is convicted, he could lose his voting rights, including his own. If he regains the White House, he would become the first convicted criminal to serve as commander in chief. And if he doesn’t get probation, the question of how he will serve his sentence could plunge the country into turmoil.
America is used to Trump breaking habits, and we are now witnessing a phenomenon not seen in 248 years. Presidents have been impeached, removed from office, and voted out of office. Trump is about to become the first person to have his fate decided not just by voters but by the 12 people in the jury box.
And they all hail from the Manhattan boroughs that made Mr. Trump famous, and in which he is now deeply unpopular. Legal experts say a favorable jury gave Mr. Bragg an advantage at trial.
But the jury, which was finalized Friday and includes six alternates, is not a rubber stamp. The jury includes at least two people who have expressed some kind of affection for the former president, and it only takes one skeptical member to force a mistrial. Trump will celebrate it as a victory.
The stakes are high for Bragg, too. He stakes his career and his legacy on the prosecutions he has inherited, rejected, and transformed.
When he became president in 2022, he refused to file a financial fraud case against Trump that his predecessor had prepared, sparking an uproar in which two prosecutors resigned in protest.
But Mr. Bragg continued his investigation and soon reconsidered the hush-money deal. This incident was revived many times and became known within the company as the “zombie incident.” A little more than a year after he took office, Mr. Bragg indicted the former president.
Three other indictments followed in three other cities, but because those cases have become so muddy, Bragg’s trial could be the only one Trump faces before Election Day.
The Manhattan case consists of three hush-money deals with Mr. Daniels, a former Playboy model and a former doorman who told Mr. Trump that he had fathered a child out of wedlock.
Mr. Pecker and his tabloids bought the doorman’s silence, but the story turned out to be false. They bought the rights to a story told by model Karen McDougall, but never wrote it again. This is a practice known as “catch and kill.”
Next, Ms. Daniels was interested in selling her story about her sexual encounters with Mr. Trump. Pecker drew the line there. Her price is too high.
Instead, he and his top editor warned Cohen, who promptly paid Daniels $130,000 not to talk about his sexual encounter with Trump a decade ago.
Mr. Cohen has said he acted on Mr. Trump’s instructions, but the former president has not been charged with respect to the payments themselves. Rather, he is accused of concealing the transaction by disguising the repayments to Mr. Cohen.
Trump’s company marked those payments as legal fees because of the retainer agreement, according to internal records. However, prosecutors claim that no such fees existed and that the vassalage contract was a sham.
Trump has been accused of orchestrating, or at least approving, the cover-up. Prosecutors allege that Mr. Cohen’s company created 34 false records that are the basis of the charges against him. These included 11 checks submitted by Mr. Cohen, 11 monthly bills, and 12 general ledger entries for Mr. Trump’s trust.
As prosecutors are sure to point out at trial, Mr. Trump signed some of the checks at the White House.
However, whether Mr. Trump is directly involved in these plans to falsify records is an entirely different matter.
His lawyers will argue that Mr. Cohen knew nothing and that he handled the specifics. Prosecutors say Mr. Cohen hastily hatched a redemption plan with Mr. Trump’s chief financial officer, Allen H. Weisselberg. Mr. Weisselberg is currently in prison for perjury and is not expected to testify.
The lack of direct witnesses to confirm Mr. Cohen’s testimony is a potential flaw in the case, but it may not be fatal. Prosecutors plan to introduce documents containing Mr. Weisselberg’s handwritten notes regarding the refund, key evidence that Mr. Cohen did not act alone.
And under the law, prosecutors do not have to prove that Trump personally falsified records. Already in the first week of the trial, Mr. Steinglass laid the groundwork with a simple analogy. Mr. Steinglass asked potential jurors if they could accept that if a husband hired a hitman to kill his wife, that husband would be equally guilty as the murderer. . he pulled the trigger.
“Can you follow a similar logic in this case?” Steinglass asked potential jurors. Many people said they could do it.
Mr. Cohen is expected to say the case is the closest thing to a decisive blow. He will likely say that in early 2017 he discussed a repayment plan with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office.
If Mr. Trump testifies in his own defense, Mr. Cohen’s words could conflict with Mr. Trump’s. So it’s a he said, he said story, with two questionable statements.
Regardless of whether Mr. Trump takes a stand, the trial could be a referendum on Mr. Cohen’s credibility, and the verdict could hinge on a convincing performance.
In 2018, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to various federal crimes, including participating in hush-money deals with Mr. Daniels and Mr. McDougal, and lying to Congress about his planned business dealings with President Trump in Russia. Admitted. Mr. Trump’s lawyers will likely try to highlight Mr. Cohen’s checkered past at every opportunity.
And in cross-examination, Mr. Trump’s lawyers are likely to paint Mr. Cohen as a serial liar with a grudge against his former boss.
One of Trump’s lawyers, Susan Necheres, launched her campaign during jury selection. She referenced Cohen’s 2022 book “Revenge” and questioned the credibility of “people who say they want revenge on President Trump.”
However, prosecutors are expected to point out that Cohen told many lies on Trump’s behalf. And prosecutors plan to introduce evidence corroborating the broad strokes of Mr. Cohen’s story, potentially persuading jurors as they consider Mr. Cohen’s testimony about the key Oval Office meeting.
Madeleine Westerhout, Trump’s White House chief of staff, who has been identified as a potential witness, could confirm that Cohen did meet with Trump, even if she cannot confirm what was discussed. There is sex. Mr. Pecker could support at least some of Mr. Cohen’s testimony about Mr. Trump’s involvement in the hush-money deal. A recording of Cohen’s call with Trump also shows the former president discussing the deal with McDougal.
“The prosecution’s case is that they can trust Michael Cohen beyond a reasonable doubt regarding his isolated conversations,” said Horwitz, the former prosecutor. He called this approach “indicting 101 people.”
William K. Rushbaum, Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan and michael rossfeld Contributed to the report.
