Donald Trump’s historic, secret trial began Monday with the arduous process of selecting a jury to hear the case accusing the former president of falsifying business records to suppress stories about his sex life.
The day ended with no jurors seated. The selection process was scheduled to resume on Tuesday.
The first criminal trial of a former US president began as Trump vied to win back the White House, creating a remarkable split-screen spectacle of the presumptive Republican nominee spending his days as a criminal defendant while campaigning for power. He has combined these roles over the past year, presenting himself to his supporters, on the campaign trail and on social media, as the target of politically motivated lawsuits intended to derail his candidacy.
After a turbulent presidency clouded by years of investigations, the trial amounts to a trial for Trump, who faces four indictments accusing him of crimes ranging from hoarding classified documents to plotting to overturn an election. Yet the political stakes are less clear because a conviction would not prevent him from becoming president and because the allegations in this case date back years and are considered less serious than the conduct behind the other three indictments .
The day began with hours of pretrial debates — including over a possible fine for Trump — before moving on to the start of jury selection. The first members of the jury – 96 in total – have been summoned to the courtroom, where the parties will decide who among them could be chosen to decide the legal fate of the former and potentially future US president.
Trump craned his neck to look out at the pool, whispering to his lawyer as they entered the jury box.
“You are about to participate in a jury trial. The jury trial system is one of the cornerstones of our justice system,” Judge Juan Merchan told jurors. “The name of this case is The People of the State of New York v. Donald Trump.”
Trump’s notoriety would make the process of selecting 12 jurors and six alternates an almost Herculean task over the course of a year, but it is likely to be particularly difficult now, taking place in a hotly contested presidential election in the heavily Democratic city where Trump grew up and catapulted to president. celebrity status decades before winning the White House.
Underscoring the difficulty, only about a third of the 96 people in the first panel of potential jurors remained after the judge excused some members of the jury pool. More than half the group was excused after telling the judge they could not be fair and impartial. At least nine other potential jurors were excused after raising their hands when Merchan asked if they couldn’t sit for another reason.
One juror was excused after saying she had strong opinions about Trump. Earlier in the questionnaire, the woman, a Harlem resident, indicated that she could be neutral in deciding the case. But when asked if she had any strong opinions about the former president, the woman responded matter-of-factly: “Yes.”
When Merchan asked her to repeat the answer, she replied: “Yeah, I said yes. » She was fired.
Merchan wrote that the key is “whether the potential juror can assure us that he or she will put aside any personal feelings or biases and make a decision based on the evidence and the law.”
Whatever the outcome, Trump is determined to profit from the proceedings, framing his case and indictments elsewhere as a vast “militarization of law enforcement” by Democratic prosecutors and officials. He maintains that they are orchestrating false accusations in the hope of hindering his presidential candidacy.
He has lambasted judges and prosecutors for years, a series of attacks that continued until he entered court Monday when he called the case an “assault on America.” and declared: “This is political persecution. This is persecution like never before.
Earlier Monday, the judge denied a defense request for a recusal after Trump’s lawyers claimed there was a conflict of interest. He also said prosecutors could not play for the jury the 2005 “Access Hollywood” recording in which Trump was filmed discussing sexually assaulting women without their permission. However, prosecutors will be allowed to question witnesses about the recording, which was made public in the final weeks of the 2016 campaign.
Prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office also asked Merchan to fine Trump $3,000 for social media posts that they said violated the judge’s gag order barring him from attack witnesses. Last week, he used his Truth Social platform to call his former lawyer Michael Cohen and adult film actor Stormy Daniels “two sleazeballs who, with their lies and misrepresentations, have cost our country dearly!” »
Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, argued that Trump was simply responding to witness statements.
“It’s not like President Trump is going after individuals. He responds to the repeated salacious and vehement attacks of these witnesses,” Blanche said.
Merchan did not rule on the request immediately, instead setting a hearing for next week.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors say the alleged fraud was part of an effort to prevent salacious — and, according to Trump, false — stories about his sex life from emerging during his 2016 campaign.
The charges relate to $130,000 in payments Trump’s company made to Cohen. He paid the sum on Trump’s behalf to prevent Daniels from going public, a month before the election, with her allegations of a sexual relationship with the tycoon married a decade earlier.
Prosecutors say the payments to Cohen were falsely recorded as legal fees to conceal their true purpose. Trump’s lawyers say the disbursements were indeed legal fees and not a cover-up.
After decades of prosecution and litigation, the businessman-turned-politician now faces a trial that could result in up to four years in prison if convicted, although a sentence without prison is also possible. Trump is also expected to appeal any conviction.
Donald Trump is set to become the first former president to go on trial in a criminal case, with jury selection beginning Monday in lower Manhattan. Potential jurors will answer 42 questions to determine whether they can be impartial in the hush money criminal case brought by the Manhattan District Attorney. NBC New York’s Melissa Russo reports.
Trump’s lawyers lost their bid to get the secrecy case dismissed and have since repeatedly sought to delay it, prompting a series of last-minute appeals court hearings last week.
Among other things, Trump’s lawyers argue that the jury pool in overwhelmingly Democratic Manhattan has been tainted by negative publicity about Trump and that the case should be moved elsewhere.
An appeals judge has denied an emergency request to delay the trial while the change of venue request goes to a panel of appeals judges, who are expected to review it in the coming weeks.
Manhattan prosecutors countered that much of the publicity came from Trump’s own comments and that the questions would help determine whether potential jurors can set aside any preconceived notions they might have. Prosecutors say there is no reason to believe there aren’t 12 fair and impartial people among Manhattan’s approximately 1.4 million adult residents.
Potential jurors will be known only by their numbers, with the judge ordering their names kept secret from everyone except prosecutors, Trump and their legal teams. The 42 pre-approved motions, sometimes multi-pronged, include basic information but also reflect the uniqueness of the case.
They are asked, among other questions, about their hobbies and news habits, whether they have strong beliefs about Trump that would prevent them from being impartial, and whether they have attended Trump rallies. or anti-Trump.
Based on the responses, attorneys can ask a judge to remove people “for cause” if they meet certain criteria of unfitness to serve or impartiality. Lawyers can also use “peremptory challenges” to dismiss 10 potential jurors and two potential alternates without giving a reason.
“If you want to hit everyone who is Republican or Democrat,” the judge observed at a February hearing, “you’re going to run out of peremptory challenges very quickly.”
NBC Chicago
