The appeals court in New York denied Trump’s motion to move his upcoming hush money trial. On Monday, the ex-president’s legal team asked the court to postpone the trial so that a possible move to a another location might be considered. According to them, Trump would have a very hard time getting a fair jury in New York.
Nevertheless, following Monday’s consideration of the arguments, Associate Justice Lizbeth González swiftly denied the plea to halt the trial, and the motion to transfer the trial would not be further debated.
Earlier today, exactly one week prior to the start of Trump’s trial, his attorneys submitted the plea to the state appellate court. The legal team representing Trump has declared their intention to formally request the lifting of the restraining order that Judge Juan Merchan had imposed, which forbids Trump from making public statements about any witnesses or anyone else connected to the upcoming trial or the district attorney’s office. On Monday, no one spoke about the subject.
In his earlier motion to delay the trial owing to pretrial publicity, former president Trump’s lawyer Emil Bove cited polls and media studies during Monday’s appeals court session. No ruling on the motion has been rendered by the judge as of yet.
“This case is unique in terms of pretrial publicity in this county,” said Bove.
Next week’s jury selection in New York County, namely Manhattan, cannot be fair, according to Trump’s legal team. Until their motion to alter the venue is resolved, the counsel has renewed their request to postpone the trial.
Due to its closeness to the trial’s opening, Trump’s attorneys’ motion was deemed untimely, according to Steven Wu, Chief of Appeals at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. If it appears they cannot choose an impartial jury from New York County, he says Trump should ask for a change of venue.
Rather than the contents of Trump’s survey, Wu stressed that the capacity to select a jury of twelve impartial jurors and alternates is crucial.
Publicity surrounding this case is automatically negative, according to the defendant’s continuous assumption throughout this argument. “The evidence does not support this,” Wu stated. Generally speaking, the periodicals give fair coverage of the case by summarizing the claims, as stated by Wu. His argument was that the world takes notice of a situation like this.
Wu said that neither the particularly high media coverage of New York County nor the inability of its residents to be fair are shown by Trump’s filings.
“The mere awareness of jurors about this case does not necessarily imply bias,” Wu said. “The defendant is entering this argument with a history of wrongdoing, as a significant portion of the negative attention is a result of his own actions.”
On Monday, the jury questionnaire for the hush money trial became public. Among the many topics that prospective jurors will be asked about are their preferred news sources, where they currently reside in the city, and any associations they may have, such as with the Proud Boys or the QAnon movement, as well as their participation in events such as rallies for the former president.
Juries will probe prospective members for their thoughts on Trump and any ties to his presidential campaign, administration, or affiliated groups, as well as whether they or anyone in their social circle has ever been to a Trump rally. Furthermore, they will be asked about their associations with groups or events that oppose Trump. No one’s voting record, political contributions, or party affiliation will be the subject of any direct questioning.
In addition, the jury will be asked whether they have read or listened to anything by Michael Cohen, who was Donald Trump’s lawyer and a key witness in the prosecution’s case, or Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in Manhattan who has also written a book on the same topic.
In the case regarding the hush money, jury empanelment is set to begin on April 15th.