Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York

Request Edit in Trial

Old Text under subtitle Trial:

On April 12, 2023, in a separate legal action, Trump sued Cohen, seeking $500 million in damages for breach of contract.[113]

I suggest to append the old text, immediately following [113] with the following sentence:

On October 5, 2023, Trump dropped the lawsuit against Cohen. [ref1,ref2]

ref1: New York Times, October 5, 2023, Trump Drops Lawsuit Against Michael Cohen, His Former Fixer.

ref2: Reuters, October 6, 2023, Trump files to dismiss $500 million lawsuit against his ex-lawyer

Note Similar references exist in CNN. I would not include that the lawsuit is temporarily paused as stated by Trump's spokesperson. The alternative wording "files to dismiss" is acceptable. I believe the addition is necessary, as without it, there exists a legal threat against Cohen. Davelord florida (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a Thought

If this trial goes on for much longer, it might be a good idea to create a separate article for the trial itself. 173.187.179.10 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

A WP:SPLIT may become necessary in time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I agree. In fact, there is no reason to wait as there is no doubt that the topic is GNG notable enough and that it will just grow and grow. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Somewhat relatedly: HuffPost says the "trial is now in its third week of proceedings." I suppose they're counting the week of jury selection, while we started counting weeks only with opening statements. This Wikipedia article (as currently organized) says we're on "Week 2." Is there a canonical way to count weeks of trial? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Please cancel my question from 30 April. This has been addressed, as the sections are no longer called "Week 1," "Week 2," but instead are grouped by the name of the witness giving testimony, which does seem more useful anyway. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Motion to dismiss the indictment

This article seems to have skipped over Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and Judge Merchan’s rejection of that motion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

A clarification: Anythingyouwant here links and refers to Merchan's decisions 15 February 2024. @Anythingyouwant: You argued as if this were the occasion when the defense tried to stop the indictment, and (mainly) were turned down. IMHO, the trouble with describing the pretrial motions is the multitude of similar motions from the defense. As you can see, the editors of the article have tried to tackle this by organising the pretrial motions by topic, rather than by a time-line, with all repetitive motions repeated in our article once for each time a motion of the defense brought forward the same arguments. I agree with this; I think that this is a suitable structure in order to make a reasonable and readable presentation of the pretrial motions.

With this said, I do think that the source Anythingyouwant should be useful, for several reasons.

• First, we probably ought to add a subsection headed Requests for dismissal of the indictment; and partly this primary source (but mainly secondary ones based on it) would be good for writing and sourcing it.
• Secondly, the source treats not just a large number of dismissals of defense motions, but also some partial sustains; and these IMHO indeed are of sufficient interest to be added to the article. Seemingly, the prosecution at that time (at least implicitly) had reserved the possibility to add further instances of the alleged 'other crimes', apart from those contained in what Merchan calls 'four theories'. Merchan dismisses the fourth theory as not being sufficiently founded at the time of the arrangement; and limits the prosecution to arguing for the three remaining theories, on the ground that the time for the trial is near, and that the defendant's side must have a reasonable possibility to prepare its defense. This did not invalidate any of the 34 cases in the indictment, but it does limit the meaning the prosecution may give to those 'other crimes' mentioned in each case.
• Thirdly, some of the dismissed notions might be worth to mention under other, already existing, headings.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this is based on my non-expert interpretation of that primary source. Thus, as usual, appropriate secondary or tertiary sources are much to be preferred. JoergenB (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I support creating a subsection headed “Requests for dismissal of the indictment.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

IMO, the pretrial motions to dismiss should be given summary treatment in this article, and expounded upon in a separate article if and only if Trump loses and then appeals and THEN if and only if we can do so in a way that avoids tripping over WP:NOTNEWS and the various guidelines on editing according to one's personal agenda. At that time we'll see which of the arguments the Trump defense feels are meaty enough to fight over, and that's when we should bother doing critical thinking how to report them. For now, summary of the reasons raised and the reasons rejected will do just fine. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Come to think of it, we should probably summarize (30,000ft view) all the legal moves leading up to seating the jury, but I wouldn't object to having a densely detailed sub article with sections on the various defense efforts. That way the greatest possible readership can stay informed without drowning in the legal noise and those who want the legal noise can read the sub article. Which is sort of the way our sub-article system is supposed to work, anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal of new subsection; call for secondary sources

For (so far uncontested) reasons set out in the section [.#Motion to dismiss the indictment] supra, I think that a new subsection should be inserted in the section Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Pretrial motions. I'll write an outline of it infra, here in the talk page.

I do not intend to put this into the article as it is now, without improvements or at least comments from other editors (such as, e. g., one or several of TuckerLieberman, UpdateNerd, and WellThisIsTheReaper); mainly for the following reasons. This (BLP) topic is highly contentious, whence we should be extra careful to follow all relevant policies, including WP:PSTS; and I have not succeeded in finding any other source than the one provided by Anythingyouwant, an official decision issued by Merchan February 15 this year. This, I think, for sure should be regarded as a primary source as regards the decisions of 'the Court' (i. e., of Merchan in his capacity of the judge for this trial). Moreover, while it is true that the 30 pages documents do include summaries of the motions and arguments of the two parties, which more or less is of 'secondary source nature', official court decisions are not among the secondary sources that our policies recommend. In my subsection sketch, I'll try to abstain from 'synthesis' as far as possible; but it is rather hard to avoid this completely.

Thus, I would be rather happy if someone has better luck (or higher skills) in finding appropriate secondary sources than I had. Failing this, I hope that some of the presently most active editors of this article glance at this source, and judge whether the sketch or an improved verison of it would be publishable in spite of its reliance on this single source. (Self-evidently, in either case, I claim no 'ownership' to the sketch. Any editing of the version infra is welcome. So is including a completely new version directly into the article. However, if someone includes a modified version of my sketch into the article, then I think that a reference to the talk page version of the text in the edit summary would be in best compliance with our copyright policies.) JoergenB (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Post scriptum: I do not have time to polish the following outline further now, or check the adequacy of my arguments and citations selection; and I probably cannot return to this for a few days. Also, at a glance this seems to be unproportionately long, compared to other subsections. Anyone finding a more proper source, or wishing to improve it in any other way is gladly invited to do so; however, please wait a few days before dismissing it completely because of me having committed too many mistakes in the details—or for just providing too many of them:-). JoergenB (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tuckerlieberman: Sorry for misspelling your username supra; this ping ought to work. JoergenB (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@JoergenB, do any of these match the kinds of secondary sources you're looking for?

"Prosecutors told the judge the six-year delay was 'justified' since there was an ongoing related federal investigation and Trump fought a subpoena for his records, which landed the case before the US Supreme Court." (What to watch for at Trump’s New York hush money hearing, CNN, Feb 15) — This article appears to have been updated with the results of the hearing at the top, while earlier pre-hearing info remains at the bottom.

"In raising five separate arguments to dismiss the charges, Trump’s legal team threw many claims at the prosecution...In our assessment...They will almost certainly all fail." (A Guide to Thursday’s Hearing on Trump’s Motion to Dismiss the Manhattan Prosecution, Norman L. Eisen and Andrew Warren, Just Security, Feb 14) — if you want to use this, please see this Wikipedia discussion on whether Just Security is a reliable source

"Trump had complained about the more than half-decade interval between Cohen’s prosecution and his own charges, seeking dismissal on the grounds of 'pre-indictment delay.' In his ruling, Merchan said he 'agreed' with the prosecution that the pause was justified by the 'complex investigation.'" (Trump Fails to Get N.Y. Hush-Money Case Dismissed, as Judge Gears Up for March Trial, Adam Klasfeld, Just Security, Feb 15) — again, see discussion on Just Security

"'It is completely election interference,' complained Todd Blanche, Trump's lead attorney...noting that the GOP frontrunner has primaries and caucuses 'nearly every day' through March...'It should not happen.'...'That's not a legal argument,' the judge responded. 'I'll see you March 25th.' Trump's side had also asked, in papers filed in September, to dismiss the entirety of the case as too old , including on statute of limitations grounds, and as legally defective. This, too, the judge rejected." (Donald Trump's Hush-Money Case: No Delay, No Dismissal, Business Insider, Feb 15)

"Defense attorney Todd Blanche pushed back against Merchan’s decision, insisting the defense needs more time to prepare and that a trial will unfairly interfere with Trump’s quest to return to the White House. He also noted that the former president is scheduled for trial in late May in Florida on charges of illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing government attempts to retrieve them. The judge in that case, however, has indicated that she may delay the proceedings to allow more time for the lawyers to review highly classified evidence....Merchan told Blanche that judges in the Trump cases simply could not wait around to see what other courts might or might not do, and said it was time to move forward." (Trump’s first criminal trial set for March in N.Y. on hush money charges, subscriber gift link, Washington Post, Feb 15)

"'I've tried to work with you where it's reasonable,' Merchan told Blanche. 'You're not going to be in two places at the same time.' ... "The constitution affords the president a fair trial," Blanche said. 'I appreciate what you're saying about your client's constitutional rights. I don't want to violate his constitutional rights nor does anyone else,' Merchan said." (Judge says Trump's hush money trial will move forward, shoots down campaign conflict arguments, ABC, Feb 15) Tuckerlieberman (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tuckerlieberman: Thanks! (This explains that what to me was a mystery actually more was an effect of my stupidity. Actually, I never related that occasion where Merchan declared that the trial would start as planned on March 25 with the one where he dismissed the indictment dismissal demands. Of course, news media put more emphasis on the fact that Trump's first criminal trial indeed would start within a few weeks than on the reasons for dismissing the defendant's complaints.)

I'll look this over; I'm sure much of these sources may be used. However, at a first glance, the 'best' source as regards the content, Just Security, also potentially is the 'worst' as regards WP:BLPSPS (thanks for the warnings). JoergenB (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@JoergenB

Ah, got it—

Yes, in this Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York article, there’s a section called “Request for indictment dismissal” which just has a single sentence: “On September 29, 2023, Trump's team submitted omnibus motions which pursued dismissal of the indictment, alleging its lack of legality and timeliness, further asking for the bill of particulars be explicated.”

Under that, there’s a section called “Trial scheduling” that includes this paragraph: “On May 23, 2023, Justice Merchan set the trial for March 25, 2024. Trump's team complained that he expected to have multiple trials around that time. Merchan said he would discuss rescheduling closer to the time. At a February 15, 2024, hearing, which Trump attended, Merchan reaffirmed the March 25 trial date.”

So it is already mentioned, though without details. Tuckerlieberman (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tuckerlieberman: Yes; that's the 'summary section' added by UpdateNerd, here, a few days ago, with a direct reference to the ongoing discussion here. I think it is adequately placed, but worth to expand a little. JoergenB (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for dismissal of the indictment

On September 29, 2023, the defense requested to dismiss the indictment or, failing that, to get some clarification of the charges. After months of written argument and deliberation, on February 15, 2024, Merchan decided against these motions to dismiss (in other words, he decided to sustain the indictment) but granted part of the clarification demands. Generally, so that an indictment can be issued, prosecutors must have evidence that provides a reason to believe a particular person committed a crime. At this stage, they do not yet have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the person committed a crime; this will be a goal at the trial.

Briefly, the five proposed grounds for indictment, and the answers from the judge, were

1. Pre-indictment delay: The defense noted that years had passed between the purported crime and the indictment, a delay they claimed caused Trump to suffer 'prejudice'. However, the judge found that the delay was justified and had not injured Trump. The prosecution had waited for a federal investigation to finish; Trump had not been incarcerated; and Trump had publicly stated that these charges increased his political support.
2. Insufficiency of the charges: The defense claimed that the defendant had not 'falsified business records', and that he anyhow had had no 'intent to defraud' any specific person or entity. The judge noted that 'business records' encompass much more than the bookkeeping entries of a commercial company, and decided that indeed the 34 instruments listed in the indictment could regarded as such. Likewise, he claimed that 'fraud' "is not limited to the causing of financial harm or the deprivation of money or property".
3. Selective prosecution: The defense claimed that he was targeted and unequally treated, both according to the federal and to the state constitution. They gave one example of what they claimed was an unequal treatment, namely, that the "Manhattan-headquartered presidential campaign [of Hillary Clinton] improperly booked campaign expenses as legal payments in connection with the hiring of a research firm to prepare the so-called Steele Dossier...". The judge claimed that the defense (in this case) had not explained what the purpose of unjust treatment should have been. Moreover, in the Steele dossier case, the judge claimed that the defense claimed but did not substantiate that Hillary Clinton would have been the target of the investigation.
4. Dismissing the indictment as barred under the statute of limitations: The defense claimed that the charges were time-barred. The judge noted that deadlines for criminal charges had been extended by the New York governor due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that this indictment fell within that extension.
5. Multiplicitous counts: The defense claimed that the indictment is multiplicitous, since it ""groups sets of charges based on the same alleged payments to Cohen." The judge agreed with the prosecution that each separate instrument could be charged separately; the defendant had based their claim on a case where one and the same instrument was employed in two charges.

The defense also made a motion to compel the people to provide additional particulars. In particular, the reference to "other crimes" in each of the 34 charges ought to be more specific, in order to enable a proper defense. The prosecution provided four specific laws which might be broken by these "other crimes", but were not prepared to go into detail of how each falsification would have been intended to cover any particular law before the trial. The judge noted that the defense had a right to know what the defense should encompass. He also found that the first three law clauses had been clearly substantiated in the indiction, but not so the fourth. Moreover, introducing any further points this close to the trial would be improper. Thus, he ordered that any intent of an other crime instance furthered by the prosecution should refer to one of the three first law instances; although in the evidence for one such violation also other (planned or executed) misdemeanors might be touched.

I tweaked the headers. Glad to tweak the rest once it’s added to the article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The judge does not "claim" when making findings of fact or ruling on the application of law.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Would you accept "The judge stated"? JoergenB (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If its in the judge's opinion and ruling denying the motions to dismiss then "found" or "ruled". If it's in a bench opinion, then "found" or "ruled". Inserting weasel words like "stated" or "claimed" in place of "Found" and "ruled" in these official actions by the court risks appearance of POV. For other utterances by the judge, by word or pen, I might go for "state" but would want to review the quote and think about the context. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I would not call either claim or state a "weasel word" in any ordinary context (since in their ordinary use they're fairly neutral as regard the truth content of whatever was uttered); but, as I've said, I'm not a lawyer, and do not claim to know what is appropriate here.

@NewsAndEventsGuy: Do you accept "The judge noted" (which appears several times supra)? JoergenB (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"What's approrpriate?" That's easy. The only reason we're struggling to choose the right word is because we're talking about how we interpret and present primary sources (court docs) instead of just writing summary text based on high quality WP:SECONDARY (or tertiary) sources, like we should be doing. If there are no high quality secondary/tertiary RSs to base this section on, then its inclusion in this top level article seems questionable. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk)

Maybe we could cut this sentence?

"For an indictment to be granted, the prosecution should present charges which, if they were found valid in a trial, would constitute the alleged crime; and competent and admissible 'proofs' for the charges."

I believe this sentence is saying that (a) a charge has to allege an actual crime and not just something like "he put too much salt in the spaghetti" which is not a crime even were it proven at trial that his spaghetti was too salty (b) the prosecution has to have a reason for bringing the charges and can't just say "we charge you with robbery" of a store 1,000 miles away when there's zero evidence linking this particular person to the crime (i.e., you have to explain why you're charging this person and not some other randomly selected person). Am I correct? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

If I've got that right, the sentence could be rewritten (for example): "If the prosecution provides a reason for why it believes a particular person did something illegal, an indictment may be granted." Tuckerlieberman (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Tweaking these titles is O.K. for me. (I was quoting the headings literary from the document.)

@Tuckerlieberman: As I said, I'm not a lawyer, and cannot answer for what the best representation of the juridical formulations would be. However, I think that we should avoid writing as if the decisive factor were subjective. Whether the prosecution actually believes the defendant to be guilty or not should be completely irrelevant, I think.

The text I tried to sum up was the following (from page 7)

The standard that is to be appiled on a motion to dismiss an indictment due to legal insufficiency is "whether there was 'competent evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish every element of an offense charged and the defendant's commission thereof.'" People v. Swamp, 84 NY2d 725 [1995]. A grand jury may indict a person for an offense when: (a) the evidence before it is legally sufficient to establish that such person committed such offense and (b) competent and admissible evidence before it provides reasonable cause to believe that such person committed such offense. CPL § 190.65(1).

(Note, that this text talks about (evidence based) reasonable cause to believe, not about the actual belief.)

Please, feel free to reformulate the sentence as you think is best (and still in a reasonable accordance with the source)! (But IMHO our kind of trouble here really supports the preferences for secondary sources... .) JoergenB (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@JoergenB Got it. Will this do, instead? "prosecutors must have evidence that provides a reason to believe a particular person committed a crime" Tuckerlieberman (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tuckerlieberman: That formulation is O.K. for me. (However, I really would like to know whether there are any reliable secondary sources or not. Have the main news media become so bored with all these delay maneuvers by Trump's lawyers, that no one wrote anything about Merchan's February 15 dismissal?) JoergenB (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)