District Attorney Alvin Bragg Demands Delay in Trump’s New York City Trial

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has requested a postponement of President Trump’s trial by up to thirty days. The charges stem from an alleged payment to adult entertainer Stormy Daniels, also known as Stephanie Clifford, to keep quiet about an affair.

The trial, initially set to begin jury selection on March 25, faces a potential delay. Bragg accused Trump last April on 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, each carrying a maximum sentence of four years.

Bragg stated that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had recently handed over approximately 31,000 pages of documents to both the defense and prosecution on Wednesday. He mentioned that he would require about a month to review the documents thoroughly. Bragg blamed Trump for the delay.

Text from Bragg’s filing:

Defendant has moved for an adjournment or dismissal based on claimed discovery violations, and also seeks to adjourn the start of trial by 90 days because of the production since March 4, 2024, of approximately 73,000 pages of records by the United States Attorney’s Office. These records were produced in response to defendant’s January 18, 2024, subpoena to that office. The People’s opposition to defendant’s motion is currently due tomorrow, March 15. The People’s opposition will set out in detail our full compliance with Article 245 throughout the discovery process in this case.

We submit this notice in advance of that opposition to advise the Court of additional developments yesterday, after defendant filed his motion and after the People submitted our one-page letter response. Specifically, yesterday the USAO produced approximately 31,000 pages of additional records and represented that there will be another production of documents by next week.

Based on our initial review of yesterday’s production, those records appear to contain materials related to the subject matter of this case, including materials that the People requested from the USAO more than a year ago and that the USAO previously declined to provide.

These developments do not affect the People’s compliance with all obligations under Article 245 and certainly do not warrant dismissal, and the People are ready for trial on March 25. Nonetheless, in light of the distinctive circumstances described below, the People do not oppose a brief adjournment of up to 30 days to permit sufficient time for defendant to review the USAO productions.

Regarding the 73,000 pages of records produced by the USAO as of the date of defendant’s motion, the People’s initial review indicated that those materials were largely irrelevant to the subject matter of this case, with the exception of approximately 172 pages of witness statements that defendant would have adequate time to review and address before trial.

Yesterday afternoon, however, the USAO produced approximately 31,000 pages of additional records to both the People and the defense in response to defendant’s subpoena, and also indicated that an additional production would follow by next week.

We note that the timing of the current production of additional materials from the USAO is a function of defendant’s own delay. The People diligently sought the full grand jury record related to Cohen’s campaign finance convictions from the USAO last year, including exculpatory material and (1) grand jury minutes and tapes; (2) witness lists and other documents identifying the names or identities of grand jury witnesses; (3) any grand jury subpoenas and documents returned pursuant to those subpoenas; (4) exhibits presented to the grand jury; (5) to the extent within the scope of Rule 6(e), summaries of witness interviews occurring outside the grand jury; and (6) to the extent within the scope of Rule 6(e), search warrant affidavits or other applications that contain evidence from the grand jury, and evidence seized pursuant to those warrants.

In response, the USAO produced a subset of the materials we requested, which we timely and fully disclosed to defendant on June 8, 2023, more than nine months ago.

Get The Free News Addicts Newsletter

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Despite having access to those materials since June, defendant raised no concerns to the People about the sufficiency of our efforts to obtain materials from the USAO before last week; instead, defendant waited until January 18, 2024, to subpoena additional materials from the USAO and then consented to repeated extensions of the deadline for the USAO’s determination. The timing of the USAO’s productions is a result solely of defendant’s delay despite the People’s diligence.

Nonetheless, and although the People are prepared to proceed to trial on March 25, we do not oppose an adjournment in an abundance of caution and to ensure that defendant has sufficient time to review the new materials. We, therefore, notify the Court that we do not oppose a brief adjournment not to exceed 30 days, notwithstanding the People’s compliance with all of our obligations under Article 245.

We also request an extension from Friday, March 15, to Monday, March 18, for the People to file our full response to defendant’s discovery motion, in order to permit us to fully address intervening developments since the date of defendant’s motion.

We submit this notice before filing our opposition to defendant’s motion to make the Court aware of yesterday’s developments as promptly as possible and to permit the Court to consider how to proceed. We are available for a conference with the Court if the Court requests.

Share your thoughts by scrolling down to leave a comment.

By Hunter Fielding
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Acord
John Acord
29 days ago

72,000 pages of evidence cannot be adequately reviewed in 30 days. It would take up to 6 months. Also, we have yet to see what is still being withheld. The USA for the Eastern DIstrict has previously dropped any case against Trump. I think the evidence is most probably exonerates Trump. That’s why it was withheld for a year. This case is a joke anyway.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x