In a striking rebuff, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has dismissed Donald Trump’s plea to delay his hush-money trial in New York, attributing part of the pretrial media frenzy to Trump himself.
New Republic reported that Bragg is insisting that the trial proceed without delay, countering Trump’s argument that excessive pretrial publicity compromises the potential for a fair trial. Bragg is desperate to get the trial moving in an attempt to land a criminal conviction ahead of the presidential election in November.
The dispute began in March when Donald Trump and his legal team sought an adjournment of the trial, pointing to the overwhelming media coverage in New York as prejudicial. They contended that such exposure could taint the jury pool, thus impeding Trump's right to a fair trial.
While Trump's concerns about a tainted jury are legitimate, this is all part of Trump's overall strategy to delay his indictments until the election is over.
Alvin Bragg, in a 38-page memorandum filed on a Wednesday, argued that delaying the trial would only serve to indefinitely postpone it, considering the unlikelihood of diminishing pretrial publicity. This document explicitly states Bragg’s stance that a fair trial can still be achieved promptly despite the media attention.
Bragg's memorandum also addressed the claims of an inherently biased jury due to pretrial publicity. Citing legal precedents, he firmly disagreed with the notion that pretrial publicity, no matter how pervasive, inevitably leads to an unfair trial.
These arguments on their face are questionable as Bragg expects Americans to believe that Trump can get a fair trial in New York City with all the publicity that Bragg himself has created.
Further complicating the issue is Trump's own role in the pretrial publicity. The former president has been openly discussing the trial at his rallies and on his social media platform, Truth Social. This behavior, according to Bragg, undermines Trump’s argument for an adjournment based on media coverage.
Bragg criticized the attempt to delay the trial as a reaction to media attention, pointing out the paradox in Trump's actions. He noted that it would be counterproductive to adjourn the trial based on publicity that Trump himself has been fuelling.
A significant point in Bragg’s argument is the reference to a study commissioned by Trump’s lawyers. This study found that 67% of Manhattan residents believed they could impartially judge the case, notwithstanding their personal opinions of Trump.
This statistic was used to counter Trump’s assertion that the jury pool would be inherently biased against him. Bragg emphasized that this finding underscores the possibility of convening an impartial jury despite widespread media coverage.
Moreover, Bragg highlighted Trump’s refusal to limit his extrajudicial statements about the case. Trump has insisted on maintaining an “uncensored voice” on matters related to the case, further contributing to the pretrial publicity he now criticizes.
The legal document filed by Bragg has sparked significant discussion within legal and public circles. “Defendant appears to acknowledge that there is no end in sight to public coverage of this criminal proceeding, laying bare his strategy of obtaining an open-ended delay of the trial,” Bragg wrote, pinpointing the core of his argument against adjournment.
By suggesting that the solution to Trump’s complaint about pretrial publicity is to expedite the trial, Bragg proposes a pragmatic approach to ensuring justice is served timely. “The answer to defendant’s complaint about pretrial publicity is thus to hold this trial sooner rather than later,” he wrote in the memo, signaling his intention to move forward without undue delay.
In his memo, Bragg further argued against the premise that any level of pretrial publicity could irrevocably harm the jury pool. He stated, “That argument flouts bedrock law that expressly holds otherwise. Pretrial publicity, even when pervasive and adverse, ‘does not inevitably lead to an unfair trial.’” This reiterates his belief in the resilience of the judicial process despite external influences.
Trump’s active role in the publicity surrounding the trial was also critiqued by Bragg. He pointed out the irony in Trump's request for adjournment due to the very media attention he has been engaging with. “It would be perverse to reward defendant with an adjournment based on media attention he is actively seeking,” Bragg noted, challenging the justification for the trial's delay.
In conclusion, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's firm stance against adjourning Donald Trump's hush-money trial underlines a significant legal and public discourse on the balance between pretrial publicity and the right to a fair trial. Bragg's arguments, supported by legal precedents and a commissioned study, suggest a confidence in the legal system's ability to deliver justice impartially, despite the circus of media attention. As the legal proceedings unfold, the eyes of the nation remain fixed on how this high-profile case navigates the challenges of publicity, judicial integrity, and the quest for an unbiased jury.
