Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has expressed a willingness to entertain a delay in the commencement of Donald Trump's hush money trial. This development comes after Trump's legal team advocated for additional time to sift through a deluge of discovery materials that have recently come to light. The former president, who is in the throes of a campaign to reclaim the Oval Office, faces his first criminal trial amidst this political endeavor, adding layers of complexity to an already intricate legal narrative.
In a court filing, Bragg's office stated, "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." This acknowledgment by the District Attorney's office marks a significant moment in the pre-trial proceedings, indicating a potential shift in the trial's timeline, initially slated to begin on March 25.
Trump's defense had previously requested a 90-day delay, citing a hefty provision of 73,000 pages of discovery by the U.S. Attorney's Office since March 4. Bragg's response to this request was nuanced, noting that upon their initial review, the documents "were largely irrelevant to the subject matter of this case," with the exception of 172 pages containing witness statements. This discernment by the DA's office highlights the challenge of sifting through voluminous records to ascertain pertinent information.
Further complicating the matter, Bragg revealed that "the U.S. Attorney's Office on Wednesday had produced about 31,000 pages of 'additional records' to both prosecutors and Trump's lawyers and 'indicated that an additional production would follow by next week.'" This recent influx of documents underscores the dynamic nature of the discovery process and its implications for the trial's scheduling.
"The timing of the USAO's productions is a result solely of defendant's delay despite the People's diligence," Bragg articulated, emphasizing the prosecution's preparedness and the defendant's role in the timing of these document releases. This assertion by Bragg points to the strategic underpinnings of pre-trial maneuverings and their impact on the judicial timeline.
Judge Juan Merchan, who presides over the case, is now tasked with navigating these requests for a delay. His decision will ultimately determine the trajectory of this high-profile trial, which Trump's attorneys assert will center on the argument that the former president "lacked the requisite intent to commit the conduct charged in the indictment." Trump's plea of not guilty to the 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, tied to payments made to silence Stormy Daniels about an alleged sexual encounter, sets the stage for a contentious legal battle.
The possibility of a trial delay represents a strategic win for Trump, who has consistently sought to postpone proceedings across the multiple criminal indictments he faces. This legal strategy, aimed at buying time, reflects the complex interplay between legal defense tactics and the broader political context in which this trial unfolds.
As the legal and political drama continues to evolve, the world watches with bated breath, awaiting Judge Merchan's ruling on the proposed delay. The outcome of this decision will not only affect the immediate scheduling of the trial but also set a precedent for how such high-stakes legal battles are navigated in the future.
Politico and NBC News also contributed to this report
