The Trump New York trial is far from a slam dunk

Adult movie star. Alleged secret payments. Turnstile lawyer. And a candidate for President of the United States.

The first criminal trial against Donald Trump — and the first against a former US president — involves allegations of white-collar crime, but includes some of the most eye-catching details in each of the four criminal cases against him.

The case revolves around a $130,000 (£104,000) secret payment by Mr Trump’s lawyer to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an affair with Mr Trump in 2006.

But this payment was not actually illegal. Instead, the blockbuster case, which brought 34 felony charges, hinged on allegations that the former president falsified business records to cover up the payment — made just before the 2016 election — to avoid an embarrassing sex scandal, which he denies.

The trial, which begins in New York on Monday, has disagreements among legal experts about the strength of the case. Some debate whether Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, should have brought the case at all and whether it was strong enough.

Ambrosio Rodriguez, a former prosecutor who says he is no fan of the former president, believes the case legitimizes Mr. Trump’s ongoing argument that he is being unfairly persecuted because of who he is.

Mr. Rodriguez argued that the case was based on old allegations, noting that federal prosecutors had investigated and declined to press charges.

“It’s a waste of time and a bad idea and not good for the country,” he told the BBC. “It just seems like a political necessity, and we want to get Trump, no matter what the cost.”

Others disagree. Nick Ackerman, who worked on the Watergate prosecution, says this is a serious case.

“This is about an attempt to deceive American voters in 2016 to prevent them from learning crucial information that would have influenced their vote,” he told the BBC, referring to Mr Trump’s alleged efforts to hide payments , reimbursing his then-lawyer Michael Cohen.

The case also came under scrutiny because it appeared to be built on an untested legal theory.

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business documents. Prosecutors in New York say Mr. Cohen paid off Ms. Daniels and accuse Mr. Trump of trying to disguise the money he paid back as legal fees.

Falsifying business records is usually considered a misdemeanor — or a low-level misdemeanor — in New York. But when done to cover up a crime, it can lead to a more serious charge.

It is not unusual for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to do this, but Mr. Bragg’s approach is particularly novel.

He says the Trump Organization’s records were falsified to cover up or aid criminal activity. But although the trial begins on Monday, it does not specify the exact crime it is alleged to have covered up.

However, he has provided clues. In court documents and interviews, Mr. Bragg said Mr. Trump violated both state and federal election laws and state tax laws.

“The District Attorney’s Office is not prohibited from presenting to the jury various alternative theories as to why the records were tampered with,” said Shane T. Stansbury, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.

But he adds that it is not clear whether a state prosecutor can invoke a federal election crime, as Mr. Bragg appears to be intending to do.

“We could have federal courts and even the U.S. Supreme Court weigh in on some of the federal issues that are part of that theory, so I think we’re a long way from a resolution on this case,” he says.

A former federal prosecutor in New York, Mark Pomeranz, said federal prosecutors have so often indicted Mr. Trump that the investigation has been dubbed the “zombie case.”

But because of the seriousness of indicting a former president, some legal experts say Mr. Bragg should have made the toughest possible case against Mr. Trump, which is why he brought the felony charges.

“Given who the defendant is in this case,” said Anna Kominsky, a professor at New York Law School, “a crime may not rise to the level of criminality that one might expect someone in Trump’s position to commit.” to be accused. “

One of the biggest wildcards in this case is the prosecution’s star witness: Michael Cohen.

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal campaign violations as part of an alleged cover-up that he says was orchestrated by Mr. Trump.

Since his release, he has become one of Mr. Trump’s harshest critics, consistently attacking him in the press and on his podcast. He has also admitted in the past to lying to Congress under oath. That history makes him a “compromised witness”, Mr Stansbury said.

But as the man at the center of the alleged scheme, he’s almost guaranteed to testify against his former boss.

“His credibility is a huge issue for the prosecution and definitely something the defense will attack,” Ms Kominski said.

Mr. Bragg will attempt to support Mr. Cohen’s testimony by presenting evidence of the payments to the jury.

The former president is sticking to a strategy that equates to attack and delay. He often calls the case a “fraud” and a “witch hunt.”

He has criticized Judge Murchan and District Attorney Bragg and attacked their family members on social media — to the point that he now has a partial gag order preventing him from attacking court officials and their families.

His lawyers tried to argue that the payments were made to keep embarrassing information from Mr. Trump’s family, rather than to hide anything from voters.

Mr. Ackerman believes that argument, if used by the former president’s lawyers in court, will fail with the 12-person jury that will ultimately decide Mr. Trump’s fate.

“Firstly, this was all done just before the election, it had nothing to do with his family,” he told the BBC.

If the jury votes to convict him, Mr. Trump will enter the final stretch before November’s presidential election as a convicted felon.

But his legal team only has to convince one jury that he is not guilty of the crimes he is alleged to have been at large.

“To me, the only defense they have is to try to pick jurors and try to identify somebody who can really hang the jury,” Mr. Ackerman said. “Try to find someone who’s a little eccentric, someone who might be more sympathetic to Donald Trump.