First Criminal Trial of Former U.S. President Begins - Trump Faces 34 Felony Counts in Manhattan

The first criminal trial of a former U.S. president in American history began in Manhattan Criminal Court as jury selection commenced in the prosecution of Donald Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Judge Juan Merchan presided over the historic proceedings as prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office and Trump’s defense team led by attorneys Todd Blanche and Susan Necheles began the process of selecting 12 jurors and six alternates who would decide Trump’s fate.

Historic First Day

Judge Merchan took the bench shortly before 10 a.m., calling to order proceedings that would make history simply by occurring. Never before had a former U.S. president sat as a criminal defendant in a trial, and the moment carried weight that transcended the specific charges. The courtroom was packed with reporters, sketch artists (no cameras were allowed), and court personnel witnessing what many legal scholars had thought impossible: a former commander-in-chief on trial for criminal conduct.

Merchan quickly dispensed with preliminary matters, including denying yet another motion from Trump’s legal team seeking his recusal from the case. Trump’s lawyers had argued that Merchan’s daughter’s work for Democratic political clients created a conflict of interest, but the judge rejected this argument as he had multiple times before. With procedural matters resolved, Merchan turned to the central task: finding 12 impartial jurors and six alternates in one of the most politically polarized cases in American history.

The Jury Selection Challenge

The challenge facing the court was unprecedented: how to find impartial jurors for a trial involving a former president who remained intensely polarizing, who was actively running for president again, and whose name and face were inescapable in American media. From an initial jury pool of more than 500 potential jurors, 96 were escorted into the courtroom on the first day. Almost immediately, dozens raised their hands to indicate they could not be fair and impartial, and Merchan excused them.

The jurors who remained underwent extensive voir dire (jury questioning) designed to probe their ability to evaluate evidence fairly despite their personal feelings about Trump. Questions covered their media consumption habits, political affiliations, social media activity, and any statements they had made about Trump or the case. The process was painstaking, with both sides using peremptory challenges to dismiss potential jurors they viewed as unfavorable.

Potential jurors were asked about their news sources, whether they had attended Trump rallies or protests against him, whether they had donated to political campaigns, and whether they could set aside their feelings to fairly evaluate the evidence. Some were dismissed for cause when they admitted they had already formed opinions about Trump’s guilt. Others were struck by the prosecution or defense using their limited peremptory challenges.

Trump’s Required Presence

Unlike typical defendants who can waive their right to be present at trial, Trump was required to attend each day of proceedings. Judge Merchan made clear that Trump’s presence was mandatory, and absences would be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances. This requirement meant that Trump, who was actively campaigning for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, had to spend each trial day sitting in a Manhattan courtroom rather than on the campaign trail.

Trump’s demeanor during jury selection varied between attentive engagement and apparent boredom or frustration. At times he conferred with his lawyers, reviewing notes about potential jurors. At other times he appeared to doze or stare blankly ahead. His inability to control the proceedings or dominate the room as he typically did in political settings was itself noteworthy - in court, Trump was simply another defendant subject to the judge’s authority.

The Charges and Trial Preview

The trial centered on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to $130,000 in hush money paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Prosecutors alleged that Trump directed his then-lawyer Michael Cohen to pay Daniels to keep quiet about a 2006 sexual encounter, then reimbursed Cohen through a series of payments falsely recorded as legal expenses. Each of the 34 counts represented a separate false entry in Trump Organization business records.

During jury selection, both sides previewed their strategies. Prosecutors would present evidence that Trump personally approved the scheme to reimburse Cohen and directed that the payments be disguised as legal fees to conceal their true purpose from voters. The defense would argue that the payments were legitimate legal expenses, that any paperwork errors were Cohen’s responsibility, and that Trump had no knowledge that business records were being falsified.

Completion of Jury Selection

By April 19, after four days of jury selection, a full panel of 12 jurors and six alternates had been sworn in. The jurors came from diverse backgrounds and included a mix of ages, professions, and political affiliations. Some regularly consumed news media, while others avoided it. Several had expressed negative views about Trump during voir dire but convinced the court they could set those feelings aside and decide the case based on evidence.

Judge Merchan praised the jurors for their civic service and emphasized the importance of their role. He warned them not to discuss the case with anyone, to avoid media coverage of the trial, and to base their verdict solely on evidence presented in court. The jurors’ identities were kept confidential due to concerns about harassment, a precaution reflecting the intense public interest and political passions surrounding the case.

Political and Constitutional Context

The trial began amid Trump’s campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, which he was leading by substantial margins in polls. The timing created an extraordinary political situation: the frontrunner for a major party’s presidential nomination on trial for felony charges, required to appear in court rather than campaign, facing potential conviction and prison time even as voters prepared to potentially return him to the White House.

Trump’s campaign characterized the trial as “election interference” designed to keep him off the campaign trail and damage him politically. Campaign fundraising appeals depicted Trump as a victim of political persecution. Prosecutors countered that Trump was being held accountable under the same laws that apply to all New Yorkers, and that his decision to run for president didn’t exempt him from facing justice for alleged crimes.

Historical Significance

The commencement of the trial marked a watershed moment in American constitutional history. Questions that had been theoretical became concrete: Could the nation’s political and legal systems accommodate the criminal prosecution of a former president? Could jurors fairly evaluate evidence involving such a polarizing defendant? Could the dignity of the judicial process be maintained amid intense media coverage and political warfare?

The trial also represented a test of democratic accountability. For accountability advocates, the trial demonstrated that no one, not even former presidents, was above the law. For Trump supporters, it represented an unprecedented weaponization of the criminal justice system against political opponents. These competing narratives would shape public perception of the trial throughout its duration.

Looking Ahead

With jury selection complete, the trial was set to hear opening statements and witness testimony. Prosecutors signaled they would call Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and numerous Trump Organization employees to testify. The defense indicated they would aggressively cross-examine these witnesses and might call expert witnesses on campaign finance law. The trial was expected to last six to eight weeks.

What had seemed impossible just years earlier - a criminal trial of a former U.S. president - was now reality. The jury selection phase had proven that even in the most unprecedented circumstances, the mechanisms of the justice system could function. Whether they could ultimately deliver accountability would depend on the evidence presented in the weeks to come and the verdict that 12 ordinary New Yorkers would render on Donald Trump’s alleged crimes.