Justice Juan M. Merchan determined in a hearing Thursday that Donald J. Trump must go on trial in a Manhattan courtroom next month to face charges that he covered up a potential sex scandal to aid his 2020 presidential campaign. The case, brought by the Manhattan district attorney’s office, will yield the first trial of a former American president.
Here are five takeaways from the hearing:
The Manhattan case is scheduled to begin on March 25.
This trial was originally scheduled to come after Mr. Trump’s federal election interference trial in Washington, which is now stalled by Mr. Trump’s immunity claims.
Justice Merchan said on Thursday that he conferred with the judge presiding over Mr. Trump’s federal case in Washington and decided to proceed with the March date. Mr. Trump also faces felony indictments in Florida and Georgia, although it is unclear whether those trials will proceed before the 2024 election.
The judge had no patience for Trump’s attempts at a delay.
Before the hearing, Mr. Trump was candid about his strategy, telling reporters, “We want delays, obviously,” adding that the trial was an attempt to interfere in the 2024 election. In the courtroom, his lawyers pushed for more time, calling the March 25 date “unfathomable” and “a great injustice,” and bringing up conflicts with the Republican primaries and caucuses.
This argument is not new to Mr. Trump, who has insisted for the past several months that trials have kept him from campaigning. Mr. Trump appeared at his past two Manhattan civil trials when his presence was not required and falsely claimed in fund-raising emails that he was being forced to attend.
Justice Merchan dismissed the defense’s arguments, and quickly grew impatient with Mr. Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche. At one point, Justice Merchan cut off Mr. Blanche, saying, “You’re not telling me anything you didn’t already include in your prior request for a conference.” Later, Justice Merchan demanded that Mr. Blanche stop interrupting him.
Trump was subdued in court.
Mr. Trump largely sat stonily during the proceedings. He divided his attention between watching the judge and his lawyers and occasionally shifted in his seat. It was a stark contrast to his animated behavior in his civil trials, where he shook his head, scoffed and twice stormed out of the courtroom.
After Thursday’s hearing, Mr. Trump falsely asserted that the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, and the New York attorney general, Letitia James, were colluding to keep him from campaigning for president. He tied that to his false claim that the cases against him are all a plot orchestrated by President Biden.
The parties discussed trial practicalities.
After the March 25 date was set, the judge turned his attention to the practicalities and logistics of the trial, including potential questions to pose to prospective jurors next month.
One prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, argued that the parties should be able to ask the jurors if they believe the 2020 election was stolen. He said that it would show an inclination to blindly follow Mr. Trump’s guidance, and an unwillingness to follow the facts. Mr. Blanche objected, calling the question “completely inappropriate.” He added, “Over half of the population of this country believes that the election was stolen.” The judge did not make a final decision.
At one point during the almost two-hour hearing, Blanche indicated that he intended to ask for a change of venue, where he is expected to argue that Mr. Trump cannot get a fair trial in Manhattan.
The day marked a significant victory for the district attorney.
The case moving forward to trial is a victory for Mr. Bragg, who said after the hearing that he was “pleased” with the judge’s decision and was looking forward to the trial.
Mr. Bragg has faced critics who derided the case as legally weak and less significant than Mr. Trump’s three federal cases. But over the past several months, Mr. Bragg has started to frame the case as election interference, saying in a radio interview in December, “It’s about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election and then lying in New York business records to cover it up.”
Mr. Bragg’s case is also significant because if Mr. Trump were to be convicted in New York State Court, he would not be able to pardon himself if he regains the presidency.
