A month after the Manhattan district attorney’s office unveiled criminal charges against Donald J. Trump, the complexity of prosecuting a former president and current contender for the White House has become clearer.
Just last Thursday, a chaotic event in an ordinary court hearing illustrated that fact.
The state court judge presiding over the case tentatively scheduled the trial for early next year, right on the president’s primary calendar. District attorney Alvin L. Bragg requested that Mr. Trump’s public comments about the evidence be restricted; the judge supported Mr. Bragg.
He recognized the role of Mr. Trump as a presidential candidate has the right to defend himself. And the former president’s lawyers have announced that they will try to move the case to federal court – arguing that as a former federal officeholder, Mr. Trump to settle there.
The hearing crystallized the delicate balance between treating the former president like any other defendant, and recognizing the fact that he is alone, as the first former president to face criminal charges.
At one point, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, angrily asked one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers whether the former president, “should be held to a different standard than all the other defendants to come to this court?”
But soon, the judge seemed to answer his own question. “Obviously Mr. Trump is different,” he said, noting the accuser’s dual role as a former president and presidential candidate. “It would be foolish of me to say he wasn’t.”
The challenge for Justice Merchan is to weigh the unique nature of his role against the principle that Mr. Bragg cited last month at a news conference announcing the charges: That all are equal before the law. .
John S. Martin Jr., a former federal prosecutor and judge, said the reality of Mr. Trump as a former president and current candidate cannot be ignored. He said Justice Merchan should consider when it is appropriate to restrict Mr. Trump’s privileges as a political candidate.
Any restrictions placed on Mr. Trump “almost has a special meaning, because it affects him like it doesn’t affect anybody else,” Mr. Martin said, adding, “You’re affecting his ability to do something that he has a right to do.” , who will run for president.”
In that context, even something as routine as setting a trial date can be fraught. Justice Merchan on Thursday asked prosecutors and Mr. Trump’s lawyers to decide on a date in February or March of 2024. That means the trial will likely take place between the main contests of the presidential election next year. , when Mr. Trump’s courtroom is struggling. is sure to be an important part of media coverage on the campaign trail.
The charges against Mr. Trump stem from his first presidential campaign, where his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, paid $130,000 in hush money to a porn star, Stormy Daniels. After his victory, Mr. Trump paid Mr. Cohen, who personally signed nine of the 11 checks used to pay him.
The family business of Mr. Trump, the Trump Organization, then falsely recorded in company records that the payments were made for legal services, prosecutors said.
In March, the former president was indicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. When the charges were made public, prosecutors and defense lawyers said they were close to an agreement on some restrictions that would be placed on Mr. Trump’s access to material in the case, and his ability to talk about the prosecution’s evidence.
But the parties could not agree. The district attorney’s office asked Justice Merchan to limit Mr. Trump’s access to some material in the case and prevent him from disseminating the prosecution’s evidence to the public, including on social media. The lawyers of Mr. Trump refused that request, saying that any restrictions placed on their client should also be placed on Mr. Bragg and his prosecutors.
On Thursday, Justice Merchan sided with prosecutors, saying the order he issued should apply to Mr. Trump, and that there was no reason it should also apply to the district attorney’s office.
However, he emphasized that Mr. Trump would remain free to speak about “the bulk of the evidence,” saying his expected order would apply only to evidence the prosecution had obtained himself.
“I try to do everything I can to be as narrow and focused here as I can,” the judge said.
A lawyer for Mr. Trump, Todd Blanche, however announced at the end of the hearing that Mr. Trump intends to move his criminal case from the New York State Supreme Court to federal court
The effort to move the case to federal court is likely to be a long shot and not have any immediate impact.
Such requests are rarely granted in criminal cases, and a spokesman for Mr. Bragg said prosecutors will contest it.
Mr. Trump’s effort hinges on a little-used provision of federal law that allows defendants, within 30 days of their arraignment in state court, to submit “a short and simple statement of the grounds ” to move their case to federal court.
The basis of the request is another provision of the law that allows some former federal officials accused in state court to transfer their cases to federal court. To qualify for that provision, according to legal experts, Mr. Trump would have to face charges for conduct related to his presidency, which is up for debate.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that because he was accused of falsifying records created while he was in the White House — Mr. Cohen for several months in 2017 – the case met the trial.
“This case is unprecedented in the history of our country,” his lawyers wrote in the dismissal notice, adding that, “Never before has a locally elected prosecutor criminally prosecuted a accused for conduct that occurred entirely while the accused was the sitting president of the United States.”
But several legal experts said Thursday that just because he’s accused of committing a crime while in the White House, doesn’t mean the crime was related to his presidency.
“He’s happy to try but he’s unlikely to have any success,” said Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney who is now a law professor at the University of Alabama. He said that the relevant law “obviously” does not come into play because the conduct was not within the scope of Mr. Trump.
Still, Mr. Trump may have little to lose in seeking a fresh start as a federal judge, especially given his history on the court with Justice Merchan. Last year, the judge presided over an unrelated tax fraud trial of the Trump Organization, in which the company was found guilty by a jury. And Justice Merchan, a former prosecutor, has been known to hand down heavy sentences in white-collar cases.
But on Thursday, the judge assured the court that he was fair.
“I have to apply the law to him as I see it and in that regard I bend down and try to make sure that he is given every opportunity possible to promote his candidacy and speak to the continuation of his candidacy,” said Justice Merchan. .
