It is increasingly likely that former President Donald Trump‘s first criminal trial of this election year will begin in New York next month, forcing the president to split time between the courthouse and campaign trail as he closes in on the GOP nomination.
Judge Juan Merchan, presiding in Manhattan, will weigh in on a series of pretrial motions, including a defense request to dismiss the case entirely, at a pivotal hearing Thursday.
A dismissal is a long shot. Instead, it is far more likely that Judge Merchan will confirm a March 25 start date for the trial on charges that Mr. Trump falsified business records to conceal hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels, Playboy model Karen McDougal and a doorman who claimed Mr. Trump had a child out of wedlock.
Mr. Trump faces 34 felony counts in the indictment. He denies the allegations and says they are part of a Democratic witch hunt to hurt his presidential campaign.
The fact that New York prosecutors will get the first crack at Mr. Trump, rather than special counsel Jack Smith and his election subversion allegations in Washington, has some advantages for the ex-president.
Convictions on the felonies in the indictment do not typically carry serious jail time, if any at all, and the allegations of payments ahead of the 2016 election are not as visceral for the American public as charges that stem from Mr. Trump‘s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
“The facts and allegations [in the New York case] are old, and I think the public has moved beyond it. The factual background and issues have already played out in the news,” said David Schulz, a distinguished politics and legal studies professor at Hamline University in Minnesota. “The lack of jail time means it will not hurt Trump in terms of campaigning and he can continue to use the case to reinforce the narrative that Democrats are out to get him.”
Also, he said, “no jail means no media image of him as a criminal.”
Robert Sanders, a distinguished lecturer on national security and law at the University of New Haven, said another plus for Mr. Trump is that he can claim a potential New York conviction is “not the big Kahuna” compared to the election cases. But, he added, any criminal conviction would be “one more thing for independent voters to put on the negative side of the ledger.”
Another potential downside for Mr. Trump is the salacious nature of the allegations in the New York case. Ms. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, may testify in the case about her alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump in 2006 and later payments.
Even so, it may only move the electoral needle a little bit.
“It is a distraction that will hurt some messaging and hurt him with some swing voters, including women,” Mr. Schulz said. “But for most people, this is who Trump is and the facts have already been discounted.”
The New York case is first in line because a federal trial on charges that he conspired against the U.S. with efforts to overturn the 2020 election results is in limbo while the Supreme Court decides what to do with Mr. Trump‘s presidential immunity claims.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Mr. Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, but ongoing appeals might delay the underlying trial beyond the election, particularly if the justices take up the case on their regular calendar instead of fast-tracking it.
A trial judge in Washington recently acknowledged that the trial will not start in early March, as initially planned.
In other matters, a federal judge in Florida is wading through pre-trial issues related to sensitive documents in a case that alleges Mr. Trump improperly stored government records at his Mar-a-Lago residence, and an Atlanta-area judge is weighing whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified from a sprawling racketeering case against Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump plans to attend the pre-trial hearing in Manhattan on Thursday instead of a same-day hearing in Georgia.
Judge Scott McAfee in Atlanta will hear testimony from witnesses who say Ms. Willis and a special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, have had a romantic relationship while pushing the case against Mr. Trump. An indictment in the case alleges Mr. Trump and 18 co-defendants violated state “RICO” laws by conspiring to overturn Mr. Biden’s win in Georgia in the 2020 election.
One Trump co-defendant, Michael Roman, says Ms. Willis should be disqualified because she potentially benefited financially from the relationship after Mr. Wade was paid for his work on the case.
Judge McAfee said a financial conflict could be grounds for dismissal, though Ms. Willis insists she received no financial benefit from the relationship.
An evidentiary hearing on the issue is expected to last all day Thursday and stretch into Friday.