On Thursday, prosecutors in Manhattan stated their willingness to postpone Donald Trump’s trial on accusations linked to hush money payments for a maximum of 30 days to allow for the scrutiny of freshly obtained records from federal officials. Such a request could potentially slow down the legal proceedings, which were due to commence with the selection of a jury on 25th March in New York, the first of four criminal charges against the prior American president scheduled for trial.
District attorney Alvin Bragg’s team informed the court of their receptiveness to this delay due to the receipt of approximately 31,000 pages of records from federal prosecutors, with more anticipated next week.
In a statement, the prosecutors wrote: “Our preliminary examination of the documents received yesterday suggests they contain information pertinent to this case, including documents that were requested from the US attorney’s office (USAO) over a year ago and that the USAO initially refused to share.”
Mr Trump’s legal representatives have requested a 90-day delay or for the charges against him to be dismissed, alleging breaches in evidence sharing between defence and prosecution. However, prosecutors do not consider a delay of this length necessary.
The case in New York focuses on claims Mr Trump instructed his then-lawyer and troubleshooter, Michael Cohen, to pay adult actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 (£94,000) in hush money before the 2016 election to conceal an alleged sexual encounter a decade prior, which he then falsely documented as legal expenses. This is a claim which Mr Trump, who recently secured enough endorsement for the Republican presidential nomination and is set to compete against Joe Biden in November, refutes alongside pleading not guilty to 34 counts of business records falsification.
Last month, prosecutors revealed plans to disclose evidence of a ‘pressure campaign’ by Mr Trump in 2018 to discourage Mr Cohen from cooperating with a federal inquiry into the payment to Ms Daniels. Mr. Cohen admitted guilt of breaching campaign finance law in the same year. Notably, Mr. Bragg’s office pointed to the accused’s own delaying tactics as the reason for the untimely production of additional materials from the USAO.
On 18th January 2024, the defendant obtained further evidence from the USAO, following which repeated deadline extensions were agreed to for the USAO’s decision, as stated by the office. Mr Trump, along with 18 fellow defendants, is implicated in allegations of manipulating the 2020 election results in Georgia with the intent to prevent Mr Biden from securing the state’s electoral votes.
At a national perspective, the justice department’s special counsel, Jack Smith, has brought charges against him for allegedly scheming to obstruct Mr Biden from taking office. In a separate case, Mr Trump is accused of secretly taking government documents post-presidency and conspiring to keep them away from officials assigned to recover them.
Being the first ex-president facing criminal charges, Mr Trump’s conviction could potentially disrupt the anticipated tough battle against Mr Biden, whose approval ratings have been consistently low for the majority of his tenure. However, delays are being experienced in his three non-New York criminal cases as the court considers pre-trial motions and appeals, leaving uncertainty over whether any of these will be resolved prior to the November 5th elections.
In another development, Mr Trump’s legal representatives beseeched a federal judge in Florida on Thursday to reject the classified documents case filed against him. His lawyers contended that the statute forming the basis for most of the charges is unconstitutionally ambiguous when applied to an ex-president.
As the courtroom proceedings took place, Mr Trump watched attentively while US district judge Aileen Cannon examined arguments over whether to proceed with the case or, as Mr Trump’s counsel hope, have it dismissed before it reaches a jury. This would be a rare decision for a judge to make. Ms Cannon posed challenging questions to both parties and did not promptly decide on Mr Trump’s request for dismissal. In this case, he faces accusations of stockpiling classified papers at his Mar-a-Lago residence after his White House departure. Ms Cannon stated that declaring a statute invalid – as requested by the defence – would amount to “a significant action”. (Guardian/Reuters)