Trump appeared in court for a hearing regarding the trial date in the New York hush money case
Trump is currently appearing in court for a hearing concerning the trial date of his hush money case in New York. This hearing is expected to be the final one prior to the commencement of the trial. Originally set for today, the trial start date has been postponed for 30 days due to the late submission of over 100,000 pages of potential evidence by federal prosecutors. The new trial date is projected to be around April 15.
The purpose of today’s hearing is to address a defense motion relating to the potential evidence and to establish a final trial date. Defense attorneys are requesting a longer delay, limitations on key testimony, or dismissal of the case based on the new materials, which they believe undermine the credibility of Michael Cohen, the star witness and former Trump attorney. Last week, prosecutors opposed the defense’s request, describing the disclosed evidence as a distraction and a strategic delay tactic. They believe that the 30-day adjournment provided adequate time for the defense to review the information.
In April of last year, Trump pleaded not guilty to the charges, which include falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment made by Cohen to Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 presidential election. This hearing will address three important issues. One of them is how defense lawyers obtained the new materials. The Manhattan district attorney’s office typically shares all documents obtained during an investigation with the defense, following an approach known as open file discovery.
While the DA’s office has claimed to have turned over all materials received from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in June 2023, Trump’s lawyers sent a subpoena to the federal prosecutors on Jan. 18, 2024, seeking additional materials. The defense lawyers requested Cohen’s tax filings, bank records, files from his iPhone and email accounts, records of Cohen’s statements, and communications with other law enforcement offices.
By Feb. 23, federal prosecutors agreed to disclose some of the requested records, including 10,778 pages of bank records and files from two iPhones and three email accounts, according to a defense filing. In total, federal prosecutors turned over 119,000 pages of records to Trump’s defense team. The breakdown of these 119,000 pages of documents is unclear, but the DA’s office argues that most of the files are irrelevant to the case or have already been produced.
Prosecutors state that fewer than 270 new documents were included in the production, with 172 pages of new witness statements. Defense lawyers argue that the documents are highly relevant and contain materials that could discredit Cohen or absolve Trump of wrongdoing. Trump’s legal team is seeking the dismissal of the case, alleging misconduct by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office in restricting key testimony and delaying the trial.
In a recent filing, defense attorney Todd Blanche claimed that the People have engaged in widespread misconduct in a desperate attempt to bolster their position in the potential trial, which is based on false and unsupported charges outlined in the indictment.In response to this motion, attorneys from the Manhattan DA’s office described it as an inaccurate collection of baseless discovery arguments, as part of a series of attempts aimed at evading responsibility for the conduct charged in the indictment.
Last week, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo stated in a filing, “The defendant’s allegations are completely unfounded, and the circumstances presented do not even come close to justifying the severe sanctions he has requested.”
If Judge Merchan decides against dismissing the case, the defense lawyers have requested a longer adjournment and have proposed the exclusion of testimony from Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and an expert witness.
Ultimately, Judge Merchan will need to assess who, if anyone, should be held accountable for the delayed submission of evidence. As Schaeffer stated, “What it boils down to is whether the prosecutors have fulfilled their obligations – that is, whether they have been diligent and demonstrated a good-faith effort to obtain the material they believe exists and should be disclosed.”