Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 1 May 2024 (→‎Requests for dismissal of the indictment: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requested move 1 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York → New York prosecution of Donald Trump – More concise and consistent with Federal prosecution of Donald Trump. Using two different naming formats for these articles doesn't make sense. Would also support a move to People v. Trump, but it appears that would not get consensus here. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. I don't see any reason not to move it for consistency. I would oppose "People v. Trump" only because I'm not certain the average reader would understand the relatively nuanced legal difference between "United States v. X", "People v. X", "New York v. X", etc. estar8806 (talk) ★ 23:30, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elli Very weak oppose. The consistency argument is too weak to pass my status quo threshold. Also, the new title has slightly more potential to be misparsed as, say, [{new {York prosecution}...}] by those for whom neither the state of New York nor Wikipedia naming convention are too familiar. Llew Mawr (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would understand the argument of it being a "new" prosecution in "X" place (here being a "new" prosecution in "York") if it were just about any other state. Considering most people will think of New York City before any other American place, it's probably not a stretch that readers will understand "New York" is referring to a place in this context, even if it's referring to the state as a whole and not the city that most would be familiar with.
    That all being the case assuming I read your argument right. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly clearer would be New York state prosecution of Donald Trump. This would more closely parallel Federal prosecution of Donald Trump and make it clearer that it's the state, not city, that is prosecutor, and that NY is not simply the location of a federal prosecution. Station1 (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Station1 I'd support that if it were proposed. It's much clearer and frees up space for a prepositional phrase to be added if the same state prosecutes Trump again on an unrelated charge. Llew Mawr (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also support that title. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Station1 Your suggestion makes even more sense now a special grand jury in the state of Georgia indicted ten persons unknown—likely to include Trump—as it would more obviously cause confusion (with the sovereign country) to move 2020 Georgia election investigation to either Prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia or Georgia prosecution of Donald Trump. Llew Mawr (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Llew Mawr @Estar8806 I also support this new title as it can avoid any ambiguity. Should a new move request be filed then? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need for a separate move request if consensus here choses a different title than the one proposed. I still personally prefer the original proposed title, but if it is to be "New York State" then the "s" must be capitalized, so New York State prosecution of Donald Trump. Though, if the concern is that it could be misinterpreted as "New", "York" prosecution, then I don't see how the addition of state would minimize that confusion at all. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there shouldn't be any worry of confusion with the City. The city doesn't have the power to prosecute cases like this, only minor offenses. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Estar8806 Totally agreed on your first point. As to the second, I'm really not fussed about which capitalisation we choose, but, presumably, when @Station1 proposed 'New York state prosecution' to, I quote, "more closely follow Federal prosecution of Donald Trump", they meant we should title so as disambiguate state prosecutions from federal ones (e.g. under their proposal, the Georgia article would also become 'Georgia state prosecution of Donald Trump'), not to distinguish the city from the state. Whilst 'New York State state prosecution of..." would be logical, I'd oppose that on obvious stylistic grounds. Llew Mawr (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: I also think this should be moved out of consistency, and the fact that it's codified with WP:CONSISTENT alone I think makes it a good rationale to do so, and generally, articles associated with the subject of Trump's prosecutions involve having the subject first. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The argument made based on consistency doesn't make sense; in fact the move would disrupt consistency with Prosecution of Donald Trump in Georgia. Keivan.fTalk 03:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Keivan.f I'm not supporting this move proposal but it did occur prior to the Georgia article's creation (exactly 24 hours before your comment when the new indictment was announced prior to its publication). Presumably any decision we make here about the titling of articles for state prosecutions of Trump would carry over to Georgia. In other words, that article would be renamed (if needed) without a discussion to be consistent with the title that results from this discussion. Llew Mawr (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the Georgia article should also be moved to "Georgia prosecution of Donald Trump". Elli (talk | contribs) 16:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elli The impending Georgia prosecution is one of the reasons for my opposition to this move and support instead of "x state prosecution of Donald Trump" since there's also a country called Georgia. For instance, 2020 Georgia state elections (whose subject Trump is charged with interfering with by Georgia state) uniquely includes "state" in its title despite being about non-state elections since Georgia (the country) had a national election in 2020 also. Llew Mawr (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Llew Mawr I'd be fine with adding "state" to both of these, though it's not my ideal title. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Such a disambiguation is unnecessary because Trump has not been indicted in the country Georgia. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Donald Trump has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject New York (state) has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject New York City has been notified of this discussion. —Usernamekiran_(AWB) (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Weak oppose: In this case, Trump alone is indicted. In the Georgia case, Trump is one of 19 people indicted. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandsomeFella FWIW, both the current title and proposed one include "Donald Trump" (and no one has suggested we remove his name from the title). Llew Mawr (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I still think the current title is better than the proposed one, firstly because "Federal" is an adjective while "New York" is a proper noun used as an adjective, secondly because we don't have total consistency anyway, due to the name of the article on the Georgia case. HandsomeFella (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request Edit in Trial

Old Text under subtitle Trial: 

On April 12, 2023, in a separate legal action, Trump sued Cohen, seeking $500 million in damages for breach of contract.[113]

I suggest to append the old text, immediately following [113] with the following sentence:

On October 5, 2023, Trump dropped the lawsuit against Cohen. [ref1,ref2]

ref1: New York Times, October 5, 2023, Trump Drops Lawsuit Against Michael Cohen, His Former Fixer.

ref2: Reuters, October 6, 2023, Trump files to dismiss $500 million lawsuit against his ex-lawyer

Note Similar references exist in CNN. I would not include that the lawsuit is temporarily paused as stated by Trump's spokesperson. The alternative wording "files to dismiss" is acceptable. I believe the addition is necessary, as without it, there exists a legal threat against Cohen. Davelord florida (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a Thought

If this trial goes on for much longer, it might be a good idea to create a separate article for the trial itself. 173.187.179.10 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SPLIT may become necessary in time. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu, I agree. In fact, there is no reason to wait as there is no doubt that the topic is GNG notable enough and that it will just grow and grow. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat relatedly: HuffPost says the "trial is now in its third week of proceedings." I suppose they're counting the week of jury selection, while we started counting weeks only with opening statements. This Wikipedia article (as currently organized) says we're on "Week 2." Is there a canonical way to count weeks of trial? Tuckerlieberman (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to dismiss the indictment

This article seems to have skipped over Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment, and Judge Merchan’s rejection of that motion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification: Anythingyouwant here links and refers to Merchan's decisions 15 February 2024. @Anythingyouwant: You argued as if this were the occasion when the defense tried to stop the indictment, and (mainly) were turned down. IMHO, the trouble with describing the pretrial motions is the multitude of similar motions from the defense. As you can see, the editors of the article have tried to tackle this by organising the pretrial motions by topic, rather than by a time-line, with all repetitive motions repeated in our article once for each time a motion of the defense brought forward the same arguments. I agree with this; I think that this is a suitable structure in order to make a reasonable and readable presentation of the pretrial motions.
With this said, I do think that the source Anythingyouwant should be useful, for several reasons.
  • First, we probably ought to add a subsection headed Requests for dismissal of the indictment; and partly this primary source (but mainly secondary ones based on it) would be good for writing and sourcing it.
  • Secondly, the source treats not just a large number of dismissals of defense motions, but also some partial sustains; and these IMHO indeed are of sufficient interest to be added to the article. Seemingly, the prosecution at that time (at least implicitly) had reserved the possibility to add further instances of the alleged 'other crimes', apart from those contained in what Merchan calls 'four theories'. Merchan dismisses the fourth theory as not being sufficiently founded at the time of the arrangement; and limits the prosecution to arguing for the three remaining theories, on the ground that the time for the trial is near, and that the defendant's side must have a reasonable possibility to prepare its defense. This did not invalidate any of the 34 cases in the indictment, but it does limit the meaning the prosecution may give to those 'other crimes' mentioned in each case.
  • Thirdly, some of the dismissed notions might be worth to mention under other, already existing, headings.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this is based on my non-expert interpretation of that primary source. Thus, as usual, appropriate secondary or tertiary sources are much to be preferred. JoergenB (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support creating a subsection headed “Requests for dismissal of the indictment.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal of new subsection; call for secondary sources

For (so far uncontested) reasons set out in the section [.#Motion to dismiss the indictment] supra, I think that a new subsection should be inserted in the section Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Pretrial motions. I'll write an outline of it infra, here in the talk page.

I do not intend to put this into the article as it is now, without improvements or at least comments from other editors (such as, e. g., one or several of TuckerLieberman, UpdateNerd, and WellThisIsTheReaper); mainly for the following reasons. This (BLP) topic is highly contentious, whence we should be extra careful to follow all relevant policies, including WP:PSTS; and I have not succeeded in finding any other source than the one provided by Anythingyouwant, an official decision issued by Merchan February 15 this year. This, I think, for sure should be regarded as a primary source as regards the decisions of 'the Court' (i. e., of Merchan in his capacity of the judge for this trial). Moreover, while it is true that the 30 pages documents do include summaries of the motions and arguments of the two parties, which more or less is of 'secondary source nature', official court decisions are not among the secondary sources that our policies recommend. In my subsection sketch, I'll try to abstain from 'synthesis' as far as possible; but it is rather hard to avoid this completely.

Thus, I would be rather happy if someone has better luck (or higher skills) in finding appropriate secondary sources than I had. Failing this, I hope that some of the presently most active editors of this article glance at this source, and judge whether the sketch or an improved verison of it would be publishable in spite of its reliance on this single source. (Self-evidently, in either case, I claim no 'ownership' to the sketch. Any editing of the version infra is welcome. So is including a completely new version directly into the article. However, if someone includes a modified version of my sketch into the article, then I think that a reference to the talk page version of the text in the edit summary would be in best compliance with our copyright policies.) JoergenB (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post scriptum: I do not have time to polish the following outline further now, or check the adequacy of my arguments and citations selection; and I probably cannot return to this for a few days. Also, at a glance this seems to be unproportionately long, compared to other subsections. Anyone finding a more proper source, or wishing to improve it in any other way is gladly invited to do so; however, please wait a few days before dismissing it completely because of me having committed too many mistakes in the details—or for just providing too many of them:-). JoergenB (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for dismissal of the indictment

On September 29, 2023, the defense side submitted a request to dismiss the indictment, on five grounds; and, failing that, to get some clarification of the charges.[1] After several monts of written argumentation by the parties, and after further months of deliberation, Merchan decided on February 15, 2024, to dismiss all the motions of indictment dismissal (or, in other words, to sustain the indictment), but partly to grant the clarification demands.[1] For an indictment to be granted, the prosecution should present charges which, if they were found valid in a trial, would constitute the alleged crime; and competent and admissible 'proofs' for the charges.[1] (Thus, the 'proofs' would not necessarily reach a 'beyond reasonable doubt' level; and moreover no proper defense is offered during the indictment process; whence the accused still should be considered as innocent until found guilty at the trial.)

Briefly, the proposed grounds for indictment, and the answers from the judge, were

  1. Pre-indictment delay: The defense noted that there had passed a number of years between the purported crime and the indictment, which they claimed made Trump 'prejudiced'.[1] The judge granted that this is a valid ground, provided that the delay was inexplicable and/or the defendant was hurt by the delay; but decided that neither was the case here. The prosecution had waited until a federal investigation was finished; Trump had not been incinerated; and Trump actually publicly has stated that the charges has increased his support in Trump's present election campaign.[1]
  2. Insufficiency of the charges: The defense claimed that the defendant had not 'falsified business records', and that he anyhow had had no 'intent to defraud' any specific person or entity.[1] The judge noted that 'business records' encompass much more than the bookkeeping entries of a commercial company, and decided that indeed the 34 instruments listed in the indictment could regarded as such. Likewise, he claimed that 'fraud' "is not limited to the causing of financial harm or the deprivation of money or property".[1]
  3. Selective prosecution: The defense claimed that he was targeted and unequally treated, both according to the federal and to the state constitution.[1] They gave one example of what they claimed was an unequal treatment, namely, that the "Manhattan-headquartered presidential campaign [of Hillary Clinton] improperly booked campaign expenses as legal payments in connection with the hiring of a research firm to prepare the so-called Steele Dossier...". The judge claimed that the defense (in this case) had not explained what the purpose of unjust treatment should have been. Moreover, in the Steele dossier case, the judge claimed that the defense claimed but did not substantiate that Hillary Clinton would have been the target of the investigation.[1]
  4. Dismissing the indictment as barred under the statute of limitations: The defense claimed that the charges are time barred.[1] The judge noted that times for all criminal charges were extended by the New York governor due to the corona pandemic, and that the indictment fell within the so extended time limits.[1]
  5. Multiplicitous counts: The defense claimed that the indictment is multiplicitous, since it ""groups sets of charges based on the same alleged payments to Cohen."[1] The judge agreed with the prosecution that each separate instrument could be charged separately; the defendant had based their claim on a case where one and the same instrument was employed in two charges.[1]

The defense also made a motion to compel the people to provide additional particulars. In particular, the reference to "other crimes" in each of the 34 charges ought to be more specific, in order to enable a proper defense. The prosecution provided four specific laws which might be broken by these "other crimes", but were not prepared to go into detail of how each falsification would have been intended to cover any particular law before the trial.[1] The judge noted that the defense had a right to know what the defense should encompass. He also found that the first three law clauses had been clearly substantiated in the indiction, but not so the fourth. Moreover, introducing any further points this close to the trial would be improper. Thus, he ordered that any intent of an other crime instance furthered by the prosecution should refer to one of the three first law instances; although in the evidence for one such violation also other (planned or executed) misdemeanors might be touched.[1]

I tweaked the headers. Glad to tweak the rest once it’s added to the article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Juan M. Merchan (February 15, 2024). "Decision and Order" (PDF). Retrieved April 30, 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York&oldid=1221619043"