Here’s what to know as Trump’s criminal trial continues. (2024)

Pinned

5 takeaways from the second day of Trump’s criminal trial.

Mr. Trump, 77, is charged with falsifying nearly three dozen business records in an attempt to cover up a payment to a p*rn star, Stormy Daniels, who has said she had a brief sexual encounter with him in 2006.

If convicted, he could face probation or up to four years of prison time. Mr. Trump denies having been involved with Ms. Daniels, and has declared his innocence, calling the charges against him a “witch hunt” conjured by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, a Democrat.

Here are five takeaways from Mr. Trump’s second day on trial:

We are moving unexpectedly quickly.

The trial is expected to last about six weeks, according to Juan M. Merchan, who is overseeing it, and court officials had warned that the selection of 12 jurors and several alternates might take two weeks.

But Justice Merchan, an experienced jurist known for his no-nonsense style, has kept things moving fast. Before leaving Tuesday, he swore in another 96 prospective jurors, who will return on Thursday — Wednesday is an off day for the trial — raising the possibility that a full jury will be seated this week.

The seven jurors who were selected were told to return on Monday. Justice Merchan said that if jurors continue to be seated at this pace, opening arguments will likely begin that day.

The prosecution had many questions. The defense basically had one.

Potential jurors answer a basic set of 42 questions, many with subsections, and then lawyers quiz them directly.

For the prosecution, this meant asking about the rule of law, flawed witnesses and immunity deals, and whether they believed people could be guilty of crimes that they helped plan but did not carry out. Prosecutors also asked prospective jurors about their feelings about Mr. Trump, but insisted they were irrelevant.

“This case has nothing to do with your personal politics,” Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor, told the group.

But the defense team, led by Todd Blanche, was intensely concerned with prospective jurors’ feelings about the former president, asking again and again, “What is your opinion of President Trump?”

He made a point of reminding prospective jurors that Mr. Trump was innocent until proven guilty.

“He has no burden to do anything,” Mr. Blanche said.

There is Trump in the room. And then there’s Trump outside.

Inside the dingy Lower Manhattan courtroom, Mr. Trump, a showman and salesman at heart, is not allowed to speak his mind. Indeed, he was warned on Monday that outbursts would not be tolerated. Unlike the other trials he has faced, he has so far not caused any major disturbances.

Outside the courtroom is another matter. Mr. Trump has taken to addressing reporters — and their cameras, of course — in short bursts, bashing the case and the judge’s decisions.

That strategy continued on Tuesday morning, as he stopped before entering the courtroom to tell reporters that the trial “should have never been brought.” He called Justice Merchan, as he has many times before, “a Trump-hating judge.”

Mr. Trump has not totally avoided moments of bluster inside the courtroom. After Mr. Blanche questioned a prospective juror about a video on her social media feed that suggested she supported President Biden, Mr. Trump muttered something under his breath.

Justice Merchan was angered.

“I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom,” the judge said.

Jurors are telling a lot about themselves. Maybe too much.

Last month, Justice Merchan ruled that prospective jurors’ names would be shielded from the public.

Yet several have provided potentially identifying information, including the names of their employers. One, a city worker, revealed her agency. One disclosed the name of the three-person company she owns with her husband.

In his March 7 order establishing the limited anonymity, Justice Merchan said it would prevent the bribery or harassment of jurors. But some prospective jurors revealed sensitive information on their own, without any interjection from the judge.

There are occasional laughs.

Lawyers and jury experts say that jury selection is one of the most critical elements of any trial, let alone the first criminal trial of a former American president. The mood inside Justice Merchan’s courtroom on Tuesday was tense, as lawyers for both sides probed for potential biases or facts that would help them.

But there were still humorous moments. Asked whether she knew anyone in the legal field, one prospective juror said that she had “dated a lawyer for a while”

She then paused, before adding: “It ended fine.”

Another prospective juror, a Lower East Side resident, drew laughs with his very-New-York answer to a question about how he spent his spare time.

“I have no spare time,” he said.

And when one potential juror asked if her planned September wedding might be a conflict, Justice Merchan smiled.

“If we’re sitting in September,” he said. “That would be a real problem.”

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

The juror immediately brings up Trump’s comments about the Central Park Five, referring obliquely to the former president’s full page ad calling for the five teenagers of color to receive the death penalty for an infamous crime. The teenagers were arrested, convicted and later exonerated.

But he seems to be equivocating to some extent, and concludes by saying again that he can listen to the evidence and treat Trump fairly. “This isn’t showmanship, this is real life, a man’s life is on the line, the country is on the line and this is serious,” he says.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

We’ve heard very little about the other two jurors, which is likely part of why they were selected. Remaining blank and anonymous, coming off as bland, is a good way to get onto a jury.

Another is a young corporate lawyer who likes to hike and run and reads The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal

Another, when questioned by one of Trump’s lawyers, said that she had no opinion of the former president. “Especially in this courtroom, he will be treated as anyone else can be treated and no one is above the law,” she said, adding, “I am here for my civic duty. I’m here to listen to the facts.”

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Jurors who make it all the way through lawyers’ challenges are seated. That’s what happened here.

It’s worth remembering that Trump himself used to wave away criticism of some of his tweets by saying they were merely retweets.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

And now that the challenge has been denied, the defense moves immediately onto the next prospective juror.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Fairness, a Trump obsession, is now central to jury selection for his criminal trial.

News outlets, he often insists, treat him “unfairly.” Political rivals and critics treat him “unfairly.” Prosecutors who have charged him with crimes treat him “unfairly.”

“No politician in history — and I say this with great surety — has been treated worse or more unfairly. You can’t let them get you down. You can’t let the critics and the naysayers get in the way of your dreams,” Mr. Trump said of himself in 2017.

Such grievance was at the heart of his appeal to voters who propelled him in primary races, in a general election in 2016 and in his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that he lost.

Now, the question of fairness — how people view Mr. Trump’s treatment by prosecutors, and whether they can judge him impartially — is at the heart of a laborious jury selection for the first criminal trial of a former president. Prosecutors and defense lawyers are choosing 12 people from a pool of hundreds to decide whether Mr. Trump falsified business records to cover up a hush-money payment during the 2016 presidential race.

More than 50 prospective jurors said at the outset that they didn’t think they could be impartial — or, put another way, fair — in the trial, in which Mr. Trump, like all criminal defendants, is innocent until proven guilty. Over the next hours, still more said that they were uncertain about their internal fairness meters and were dismissed.

Reminders about fairness are routine during jury selection in criminal cases. Yet with Mr. Trump, even the routine can become fraught, subject to the lens of politics.

A prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, reminded possible jurors that the case was “not a referendum on whether you like” Mr. Trump. It was, he said, about the law, although he noted that everyone “and their mother” had an opinion on this case.

Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, when it was his turn, told prospective jurors he wanted to test their statements that they could be fair to his client. “You all have different views of him based on all kinds of factors,” Mr. Blanche said.

One man resisted Mr. Blanche’s attempts to learn his political beliefs. The man repeatedly said his opinion of Mr. Trump wouldn’t affect his ability to be a juror.

“I can compartmentalize,” the man insisted.

To another potential juror, Blanche said that he wanted to make sure that Mr. Trump started with her at “zero.”

Earlier, a different woman said, “nobody’s above the law,” and then added, “I believe he’s being treated fairly.” She acknowledged that probably counted as a strong opinion.

“I’m not 100 percent sure I can be fair,” she concluded. She was excused.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

The accusations against Trump: salacious details and mundane paperwork.

The payment was made by Mr. Trump’s fixer, Michael D. Cohen, to Stormy Daniels in order to buy her silence about a sexual liaison she said she had with Mr. Trump. Mr. Cohen said Mr. Trump directed him to make the payment.

Paying hush money is not illegal. But while serving as the commander in chief, prosecutors say, Mr. Trump reimbursed Mr. Cohen in a manner that constituted fraud: In internal records, Mr. Trump’s company classified the reimbursem*nt as legal expenses, citing a retainer agreement. Yet there were no such expenses, according to prosecutors, who say the agreement was also fictional.

Those records underpin the 34 counts of falsifying business records: 11 involve the checks, 11 center on monthly invoices Mr. Cohen submitted to the company and 12 involve entries in the general ledger for Mr. Trump’s trust. Mr. Trump has denied all wrongdoing.

In announcing the charges a year ago, Manhattan’s district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, said that his office must keep a close eye on how companies conduct business in New York.

“This is the business capital of the world,” Mr. Bragg said. “We regularly do cases involving false business statements. The bedrock — in fact, the basis for business integrity and a well-functioning business marketplace — is true and accurate record-keeping.”

The charges against Mr. Trump are all Class E felonies, the lowest category in New York. Each count carries a maximum prison sentence of four years.

Nothing in the law requires the judge, Juan E. Merchan, to imprison Mr. Trump if the jury convicts him. The judge could instead sentence him to probation.

But Justice Merchan has made it clear that he takes white-collar crime seriously and could put Mr. Trump behind bars. It’s possible, however, if Mr. Trump is convicted of more than one count, Justice Merchan would impose a concurrent sentence, under which Mr. Trump would serve all time simultaneously.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Here are the 42 questions prospective jurors are being asked.

But the process has been particularly drawn-out because, once would-be jurors say they can be fair and impartial, they are being asked a series of 42 questions. After that, they face additional scrutiny from lawyers for the prosecution and the defense.

Here are the 42 questions:

1. Without telling us your address, in what neighborhood do you live? For example, Upper East Side, Lower East Side, Inwood, etc. How long have you lived there? Are you a native New Yorker? If not, where did you live previously?

2. What do you do for a living? How long have you been doing that? If you are retired, please tell us what you did before you retired.

3. Who is your current employer? How large is your current employer? Are you self-employed or own your own business? Who was your prior employer?

4. What is your educational background? For example, high school diploma, college degree, graduate degree, etc.

5. Are you married? Have you ever been married? Do you have children?

6. If you are married, or living with another adult, what does that person do for a living? If you have adult children, what do they do?

7. What do you like to do in your spare time? Do you have any interests or hobbies?

8. Do you participate in any organizations or advocacy groups? Which ones?

9. Have you ever served on a jury before? If you did, please tell us how long ago that was and whether that was in Criminal Court, Civil Court or Grand Jury. Without telling us the verdict, please tell us whether the jury reached a verdict.

10. Which of the following print publications, cable and/or network programs, or online media such as websites, blogs, or social media platforms do you visit, read, or watch? (The New York Times, USA Today, New York Daily News, Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Google, Facebook, X, TikTok, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, Newsday, The Washington Post, Fox News, Newsmax, MSN, Yahoo, Truth Social).

11. Do you listen to or watch podcasts? If so, which ones?

12. Do you listen to talk radio? If so, which programs?

13. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever been the victim of a crime? If so, please briefly tell us what happened.

14. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever been employed by a law enforcement agency? For example, the police, FBI, District Attorney’s Office, Department of Correction, Etc.

15. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever been employed by a federal, state, or any local government, including but not limited to the State of New York?

16. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever been employed in the accounting or finance field?

17. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever had any education, training, or work experience in the legal field, including but not limited to practicing criminal or civil law?

18. Have you, a relative, or a close friend had any experience or interaction with the criminal justice system, including a police officer or other type of law enforcement agent, which caused you to form an opinion, whether positive or negative, about the police or our criminal justice system? If so, what was the experience? Would that experience prevent you from being a fair and impartial juror in this case?

19. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever been accused or convicted of committing a crime?

20. Do you, a relative, or a close friend have a pending criminal case?

21. Do you have any political, moral, intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions which might prevent you from following the Court’s instructions on the law or which might slant your approach to this case? Do you have any political, moral, intellectual or religious beliefs or opinions that would interfere with your ability to render a verdict in this criminal case?

22. Do you have a health condition that might interfere with your ability to be here on the appointed days and times or otherwise prevent you from serving as a juror?

23. Without telling us the name(s), do you take any medication that would prevent you from being able to concentrate or pay attention during the proceedings or during the deliberations?

24. Court proceedings normally end around 4:30 in the afternoon though on rare occasions, we might work beyond that. Would your schedule and responsibilities permit you to work later if it were absolutely necessary to complete that day’s work?

25. Do you practice a religion that would prevent you from sitting as a juror on any particular weekday or weeknight?

26. Can you give us an assurance that you will be fair and impartial and not base your decision in this case upon a bias or prejudice in favor of or against a person who may appear in this trial, on account of that person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, gender identity or expression, religion, religious practice, age, disability, sexual orientation or political views?

27. Can you promise to guard against allowing stereotypes or attitudes about individuals or about groups of people, referred to as an implicit bias, influence your decision?

28. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked for any Company or organization that is owned or run by Donald Trump or anyone in his family?

29. Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked or volunteered for a Trump presidential campaign, the Trump presidential administration, or any other political entity affiliated with Mr. Trump? Have you ever attended a rally or campaign event for Donald Trump? Are you signed up for or have you ever been signed up for, subscribed to, or followed any newsletter or email lists run by or on behalf of Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization? Do you currently follow Donald Trump on any social media site or have you done so in the past? Have you, a relative, or a close friend ever worked or volunteered for any anti-Trump group or organization? Have you ever attended a rally or campaign event for any anti-Trump group or organization? Are you signed up for or have you ever been signed up for, subscribed to, or followed any newsletter or email lists run by or on behalf of any anti-Trump group or organization? Do you currently follow any anti-Trump group or organization on any social media site, or have you done so in the past?

30. Have you ever considered yourself a supporter of or belonged to any of the following: (the QAnon movement, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, Boogaloo Boys, Antifa)

31. Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about whether a former president may be criminally charged in state court?

32. Do you have any feelings or opinions about how Mr. Trump is being treated in this case?

33. Can you give us your assurance that you will decide this case solely on the evidence you see and hear in this courtroom and the law as the judge gives it?

34. Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former President Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?

35. Have you read (or listened to audio) of any of the following books or podcasts by Michael Cohen or Mark Pomerantz? If so, please let us know if what you have heard or read affects your ability to be a fair and impartial juror in this case (“Disloyal: A Memoir,” “Revenge,” “Mea Culpa,” “People Vs. Donald Trump”)

36. The defendant in this case has written a number of books. Have you read (or listened to audio) of any one or more of those books? If so, which ones?

37. Do you have any opinions about the legal limits governing political contributions?

38. Can you promise to set aside anything you may have heard or read about this case and render your verdict based solely on the evidence presented in this courtroom and the law as given to you by the judge?

39. Can you give us your absolute assurance that you will refrain from discussing this case with anyone in any manner and from watching, reading, or listening to any accounts of this case during the pendency of the trial?

40. Can you assure us that you will follow the judge’s instructions on the law, including instructions on the definition of reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence?

41. The United States Constitution provides that a defendant has no burden to introduce any evidence or to testify in a criminal case. If Mr. Trump chooses not to testify, or to introduce any evidence, can you give us your assurance that you will not hold that against him?

42. Is there any reason, whether it be a bias or something else, that would prevent you from being fair and impartial if you are selected as a juror for this case?

As prospective jurors answer questions, they struggle to remain anonymous.

On the first day, a woman said she worked for a city agency of approximately 500 people and revealed its name. Later, a man who identified himself as a bookseller revealed the name of the small store where he works.

This continued on Tuesday when others revealed the names of employers. While some worked for companies that were large, where the potential jurors could likely remain unidentifiable, others were less cautious. One woman revealed the name of the three-person company she owns with her husband.

Justice Merchan did not interject as the prospective jurors divulged the information, nor did he caution them against doing so.

Juries are not completely anonymous in New York State. Mr. Trump, his lawyers and the prosecutors have access to the names of the prospective jurors. But after a request by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, Justice Merchan decided to withhold the names from the public. Mr. Trump did not oppose the request.

The accidental self-identifications are a notable departure from how federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan conducted jury selection in Mr. Trump’s defamation trial in January, brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll.

In the federal system, jurors are allowed to remain anonymous, even to parties in the case. Before potential jurors answered basic questions about their backgrounds, Judge Kaplan instructed them not to reveal personal information.

“Don’t give us anything that could enable anybody to pin you down geographically,” he said.

He also cautioned them not to reveal their names to each other, and when the trial concluded, he left them with these ominous words: “My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury,” Judge Kaplan said. “And I won’t say anything more about it.”

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

As Trump runs in 2024, his 2016 tactics are on trial.

The trial’s very premise is that prosecutors believe Mr. Trump orchestrated an election interference scheme. Faced with damaging stories that could have doomed his campaign — sex scandals involving a p*rn star and a Playboy model, for example — he concealed them, the prosecutors say.

But in a development that will bolster their case, prosecutors on Monday secured permission from the judge to admit evidence connected to Mr. Trump’s overall political strategy in 2016. Much of it bears the former president’s imprint: aggressive tweets, false denials, coordination with a tabloid publisher and more.

The judge’s ruling showed how the weapons that worked so well for Mr. Trump then are being turned against him in the courtroom now.

The techniques prosecutors highlighted Monday were not invented by Mr. Trump for use in his campaign; they are behaviors he exhibited throughout his life as a businessman and a reality-television star. But in modern American political history, such raw tactics had rarely been seen at such a high level.

One example is Mr. Trump’s relationship with The National Enquirer tabloid and its publisher, David Pecker, who is expected to appear as a witness.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which brought the case, obtained permission from the judge on Monday to introduce evidence related to a 2015 meeting among Mr. Trump, Mr. Pecker and Mr. Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen. A prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, said on Monday that the three men had “conspired to influence the 2016 election.”

That meeting laid the groundwork for hush-money deals with a p*rn star, Stormy Daniels, and a Playboy model, Karen McDougal. But another result of that meeting, Mr. Steinglass said, were explosive headlines about Mr. Trump’s opponents in the Republican primary, including those claiming that Ben Carson had committed “medical malpractice” and that Senator Ted Cruz had a “family connection to J.F.K.’s assassin.”

A lawyer for Mr. Trump, Todd Blanche, protested the admission of evidence related to that meeting, saying that newspaper publishers met with candidates “all the time,” and that there was nothing improper about it, let alone illegal.

That admission worked against him. The judge, Juan M. Merchan, said that he was glad that Mr. Blanche believed that there was nothing wrong with the meeting — because it meant that he should not mind that the evidence would be introduced.

“There is no reason not to allow it in,” Justice Merchan said.

Mr. Steinglass won again when he persuaded Justice Merchan to admit evidence of the Trump campaign in crisis after the publication in 2016 of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Mr. Trump boasted about grabbing women by their genitals.

“The video sent the campaign into a tailspin,” Mr. Steinglass said.

He offered up an email sent by a Washington Post reporter to Hope Hicks, Mr. Trump’s campaign spokeswoman. Mr. Steinglass said that Ms. Hicks had forwarded the exchange to Stephen K. Bannon, Kellyanne Conway and other members of the campaign team, “suggesting that their response should be to deny, deny, deny.” Eventually, he said, Mr. Bannon sent it to Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Blanche again protested, but was again rebuffed. The judge said he would allow jurors to see the email, saying that the ensuing thread was relevant.

The exchanges that prosecutors and defense lawyers debated on Monday underscored Mr. Trump’s penchant for delegating dirty work to others, giving himself some distance in the process.

The hush-money deals worked that way: Mr. Cohen paid off Ms. Daniels, while The National Enquirer bought Ms. McDougal’s silence. (Mr. Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records related to his reimbursem*nt of Mr. Cohen.)

That habit is still on display this year, and can be helpful given that Justice Merchan has barred Mr. Trump from attacking witnesses, prosecutors and the judge’s own family.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump posted on social media a video of Laura Loomer, a political ally, in the park outside the courthouse. Ms. Loomer, speaking into a bullhorn, insinuated that the judge’s family was politically compromised.

Had Mr. Trump said that himself, he would have risked violating the judge’s gag order.

After a chaotic day, a courthouse approximates its usual placidity.

As the sun rose and workers in Collect Pond Park removed overflowing trash cans around 5:30 a.m., only five people were in the line for those holding official passes for entry.

In the line for the general public were some familiar faces among court-watchers, including Ron Sinibaldi, whose hobbies include following high-profile cases. He’s previously attended proceedings involving Senator Robert Menendez, who is accused of taking bribes, and New Jersey officials involved in closing the George Washington Bridge as political retribution.

Everyday street scenes played out nearby. Around 7 a.m., a lone man fed pigeons in the park, which was sparsely populated by the time Mr. Trump’s motorcade arrived nearly two hours later.

An exception: one older man holding up a red Trump 2024 flag and shouting at television reporters: “Fight! Fight! Fight for Donald Trump!”

Shortly after, a line of young children toddled through, flanked by teacher’s aides and clutching a rope, their neon orange vests a pop of color.

Anusha Bayya contributed reporting.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

This is what happened on Day 1 of the trial.

He also ruled that prosecutors could introduce evidence regarding Mr. Trump’s involvement with coordinating publicity with The National Enquirer to aid his 2016 presidential campaign. Mr. Trump’s lawyers had described the evidence as a “sideshow,” but lost.

But Mr. Trump’s lawyers did persuade Justice Merchan that mentioning sexual assault allegations that arose against Mr. Trump after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Mr. Trump was recorded bragging about grabbing women’s genitals, would be prejudicial to the former president. Justice Merchan said the allegations would be off-limits during the trial.

Entering the courtroom Monday, Mr. Trump said he was “very proud to be here,” but he looked less enthusiastic in front of Justice Merchan. He quietly slouched and scowled — and at one point before lunch, he appeared to fall asleep.

By afternoon, prospective jurors finally made their way into the courtroom. Some quickly left: When the judge asked the first group of 96 if any believed they could not be fair and impartial to the former president, more than 50 raised their hands. They were immediately excused.

The remaining jurors were each asked 42 questions. By the end of Monday, 11 jurors had been questioned and two more were excused: a woman who said she could not be fair and a man who said his child’s wedding date could conflict with the trial.

Here’s what to know as Trump’s criminal trial continues.

Mr. Blanche did successfully challenge another, who had heralded a court decision overturning a travel ban Mr. Trump enacted as president and had at one point expressed a desire to see Mr. Trump behind bars.

The wrangling underscored the challenge of picking a jury in a city where the defendant is unpopular, a process that had been expected to take perhaps two weeks. Both sides must agree on 12 jurors and alternates who will decide the case, which centers on allegations that the former president falsified documents to cover up a sex scandal involving a p*rn star, Stormy Daniels.

Mr. Trump, who may take the witness stand in his own defense, has denied all wrongdoing. But prosecutors say that, while serving as president, he allowed his company to falsify records that hid reimbursem*nts to his former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who had paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 to buy her silence. Prosecutors say that Mr. Trump, faced with damaging stories that could have doomed his campaign, concealed them to influence the election.

Here’s what to know about the case:

• The case was brought a year ago by Manhattan’s district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg. Mr. Trump is facing 34 felony counts of falsifying business records and, if convicted, could face up to four years in prison. It is one of four indictments facing the former president and presumptive Republican nominee, but may be the only one to make it to trial before Election Day.

• A day after Mr. Trump appeared to nod off during pretrial motions, he was back at the defense table. He appeared somewhat bored as the jury selection process continued.

• The pool of possible jurors being scrutinized on Tuesday came from an initial group of 96, dozens of whom were dismissed immediately on Monday after indicating that they felt they could not fairly reach a decision.

• Jury selection will be crucial for both sides. Prosecutors have some advantage, as the jury pool is drawn from Manhattan, one of the most Democratic counties in America.

• Mr. Trump has repeatedly complained that the case is a politically motivated witch hunt and has attacked Justice Merchan and his family, as well as key witnesses, including Mr. Cohen. Justice Merchan has imposed a gag order on Mr. Trump that bars him from attacking witnesses, jurors, prosecutors or the judge’s family. Even before the trial began on Monday, prosecutors asked Justice Merchan to hold the former president in contempt of court over social media posts about Mr. Cohen; the judge said he would hold a hearing later this month.

• Justice Merchan scolded Trump’s lawyer when he caught the former president muttering in court. “I won’t tolerate that,” the judge said, raising his voice. “I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom.” He asked Mr. Blanche to speak to Trump, and Mr. Blanche quietly responded, “Yes, your honor.” He then gave Mr. Trump the requested talking-to, and Mr. Trump looked furious.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Here’s what each side is looking for in a juror.

The process could take two weeks or more — and may be as pivotal as any evidence presented in court.

“It’s the most important part,” said Arthur Aidala, a defense attorney whose firm has had many high-profile clients, including Rudy Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer. “And the hardest part too.”

The stakes of jury selection are particularly high for Mr. Trump’s team, which is aware of the former president’s poor standing among many in New York County — Manhattan, as most people know it — which overwhelmingly voted for President Biden in 2020.

Mr. Trump’s legal team sees the case as winnable, although some believe a full acquittal is less likely than the prospect of finding jurors willing to cause a mistrial by holding out against a unanimous guilty verdict, according to two people with direct knowledge of the discussions.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers want a jury that includes younger Black men and white working-class men, particularly public employees like police officers, firefighters and sanitation workers. Those who have had bad experiences with the legal system will also be prized by the defense, which has cast the case as politically motivated.

Prosecutors, conversely, will probably be looking for more educated voters from Democratic neighborhoods, fishing for those who consume news from sources like MSNBC, known for its outspoken liberal hosts, and who are fond of late-night comedians like Stephen Colbert, who hosted a presidential panel with Mr. Biden on March 28.

Unlike most trials, where many potential jurors are loath to serve, some may be actively trying to get seated in this case. Michael Farkas, a defense attorney, said that those who seem to be angling for the jury “are the people who are most likely to have a partisan agenda.”

Some may not be completely forthcoming.

“In a case like this, both parties can pretty much rest assured that they are going to have people on the jury that aren’t being completely honest about how they feel,” Mr. Farkas said.

Mr. Aidala was blunter about potential jurors.

“They lie,” he said, adding, “People want to be on that jury because they think they’re going to write a book or they’re going to be on ’20/20’ or ’48 Hours’ or one of those things.”

What happens if a presidential candidate is convicted?

For now, he faces no formal campaign restrictions, beyond having to be present in a courtroom, and he remains highly competitive in polls. But some of the cases are proceeding at a pace that could bring verdicts before the election — and the Constitution and American law have clear answers for only some of the questions that will arise if he is convicted.

Others would bring the country into truly uncharted territory, with huge decisions resting in the hands of federal judges.

Here is what we know, and what we don’t know.

Can Trump run if he is convicted?

This is the simplest question of the bunch. The answer is yes.

The Constitution sets very few eligibility requirements for presidents. They must be at least 35 years old, be “natural born” citizensand have lived in the United States for at least 14 years.

There are no limitations based on character or criminal record. While some states prohibit felons from running for state and local office, these laws do not apply to federal offices.

The Republican and Democratic Parties have guaranteed spots on general-election ballots in every state, and the parties tell election officials whose name to put in their spot. States could, in theory, try to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot by passing legislation requiring a clean criminal record, but this would be on legally shaky ground.

“We let states set the time, place and manner” of elections, said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School who specializes in election law, “but I think the best reading of our Constitution is you don’t let the state add new substantive requirements.”

While that view is not universal among legal experts, it prevailed in court in 2019, after California passed a law requiring candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on primary ballots. A federal district judge blocked the law from taking effect, saying it was most likely unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court also unanimously blocked it as a violation of the state constitution, and the case never reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

What about the 14th Amendment?

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in March that states could not keep Mr. Trump off their ballots under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies people who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking an oath to support the Constitution.

Numerous lawsuits had argued that Mr. Trump’s actions before and on Jan. 6, 2021, met this bar. In December, the Colorado Supreme Court found him ineligible, and Maine’s secretary of state did the same. But the Supreme Court — led by a conservative supermajority, with three justices appointed by Mr. Trump himself — concluded that only Congress had the power to enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. (Four of the justices, including the three liberals, wanted to allow a wider range of options for disqualification.)

Congress is not going to do that with Republicans in control of the House. And the 14th Amendment is separate from criminal cases, meaning convictions would not disqualify Mr. Trump either.

Congress can designate either groups of people to whom Section 3 applies (such as people who fought for the Confederacy) or specific crimes that, upon conviction, would trigger disqualification, said Anthony Michael Kreis, an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University. But none of the crimes Mr. Trump is charged with carry that automatic penalty.

“Whether or not Trump is tried, convicted, acquitted, that’s a separate question from whether or not he’s disqualified,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Los Angeles.

One of the charges in the federal case related to Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election — conspiracy to violate civil rights — once carried a disqualification penalty, Mr. Kreis said, but Congress removed it decades ago.

Could the party replace him on the ticket?

Now that Mr. Trump has secured a majority of delegates to the Republican convention, the party has no mechanism to nominate somebody else. Under the party’s official convention rules, if a delegate tries to support someone other than the person the primary results bound them to, “such support shall not be recognized.”

Nor have top Republicans shown any interest in another nominee.

If he were forced to withdraw from the race after the convention, party leaders could replace him then; they considered doing so in 2016 after the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape in which he bragged about grabbing women’s genitals. But this is highly unlikely given how vigorously the party has circled the wagons around him.

Could he vote if convicted?

Probably not.

Mr. Trump is registered to vote in Florida, and he would be disenfranchised there if convicted of a felony.

Most felons in Florida regain voting rights after completing their full sentence, including parole or probation, and paying all fines and fees. But it is highly unlikely that Mr. Trump, if convicted, would have time to complete his sentence before Election Day.

He could also petition for clemency, which would require the approval of the governor — Ron DeSantis, who ran against Mr. Trump in the Republican primary — and two Florida cabinet members. Chris Taylor, the director of external affairs for the Florida Commission on Offender Review, confirmed that a Florida resident convicted of a felony could apply to have their voting rights restored through that process even if their conviction happened outside Florida.

Since Mr. Trump also has a residence in New York, he could switch his voter registration there to take advantage of its more permissive approach: Felons in New York can vote while on parole or probation. But, as in Florida and almost every other state, they are still disenfranchised while in prison.

So if Mr. Trump is imprisoned, he could be in the extraordinary position of being deemed fit to be voted for, but unfit to vote.

What happens if Trump is elected from prison?

No one knows.

“We’re so far removed from anything that’s ever happened,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional law expert at the University of California, Berkeley. “It’s just guessing.”

Legally, Mr. Trump would remain eligible to be president even if he were imprisoned. The Constitution says nothing to the contrary. “I don’t think that the framers ever thought we were going to be in this situation,” Professor Levinson said.

In practice, the election of an incarcerated president would create a legal crisis that would almost certainly need to be resolved by the courts.

In theory, Mr. Trump could be stripped of his authority under the 25th Amendment, which provides a process to transfer authority to the vice president if the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” But that would require the vice president and a majority of the cabinet to declare Mr. Trump unable to fulfill his duties, a remote prospect given that these would be loyalists appointed by Mr. Trump himself.

More likely, Mr. Trump could sue to be released on the basis that his imprisonment was preventing him from fulfilling his constitutional obligations as president. Such a case would probably focus on the separation of powers, with Mr. Trump’s lawyers arguing that keeping a duly elected president in prison would be an infringement by the judicial branch on the operations of the executive branch.

On the federal charges only, he could also try to pardon himself — or to commute his sentence, leaving his conviction in place but ending his imprisonment. Either action would be an extraordinary assertion of presidential power, and the Supreme Court would be the final arbiter of whether a “self pardon” was constitutional.

Or President Biden, on his way out the door, could pardon Mr. Trump on the basis that “the people have spoken and I need to pardon him so he can govern,” Professor Chemerinsky said.

But that wouldn’t apply to the New York or Georgia cases, because the president does not have pardon power for state charges.

What if he’s elected with a case still in progress?

Again, no one knows, particularly when it comes to the New York and Georgia cases.

In the two federal cases, a likely outcome would be that a Trump-appointed attorney general would withdraw the charges.

The Justice Department does not indict sitting presidents, a policy outlined in a 1973 memo, during the Nixon era. It has never had reason to develop a policy on what to do with an incoming president who has already been indicted. But the rationale for not indicting sitting presidents — that it would interfere with their ability to perform their duties — applies just as well in this hypothetical scenario.

“The reasons why we wouldn’t want to indict a sitting president are the reasons we wouldn’t want to prosecute a sitting president,” said Professor Chemerinsky, who has disagreed with the department’s reasoning. “My guess is, if the Trump prosecution were still ongoing in some way and Trump were elected, the Justice Department — which would be the Trump Justice Department — would say, ‘We’re following the 1973 memo.’”

Like so much else here, this would be legally untested, and it is impossible to say what the Supreme Court would do if the question reached it.

In its Clinton v. Jones ruling in 1997, the court allowed a lawsuit against President Bill Clinton to proceed. But that case was civil, not criminal, and it was filed by a private citizen, not by the government itself.

Charlie Savagecontributed reporting.