In a recent development, a New York appeals court has rejected a petition from Donald Trump, the former U.S. president, seeking to change the venue of his forthcoming hush money trial. Trump’s legal team had pleaded with the court on Monday to delay the trial to consider a venue change, arguing that their client cannot secure a fair jury in New York.
However, Associate Justice Lizbeth González swiftly dismissed the motion to halt the trial after hearing arguments on Monday. No further discussion on the motion to change the venue is expected. Earlier in the day, Trump’s lawyers had submitted the petition to the state appellate court, just a week before the trial is scheduled to commence.
Trump’s legal team also revealed plans to file a petition against the gag order imposed by Judge Juan Merchan. This order prevents Trump from publicly discussing witnesses, court staff, and family members, as well as the district attorney’s office, in the upcoming trial. This matter was not debated on Monday.
During Monday’s hearing before the appeals court, Trump’s attorney Emil Bove revisited a survey and media study cited in a previous motion to postpone the trial due to pretrial publicity. The judge has yet to rule on this motion. Bove argued that the case’s pretrial publicity in the county is unparalleled. He claimed that, based on their research, it would be impossible to conduct a fair jury selection in New York County, or Manhattan, next week. He reiterated his request for a trial delay until the venue change motion is resolved.
Steven Wu, Chief of Appeals at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, countered that it was too late for Trump’s lawyers to file this petition so close to the trial’s start. He suggested that Trump should renew his request for a venue change if it appears impossible to seat a fair jury from New York County during the jury selection process. Wu argued that the issue is not what Trump’s poll indicates, but whether 12 impartial jurors and alternates can be selected.
Wu dismissed the assumption that the case’s publicity is inherently prejudicial. He argued that the media coverage has been largely balanced, summarizing the allegations. He further contended that a case of this magnitude naturally draws international attention. Wu refuted any suggestion that New York County is uniquely saturated with media coverage or that its residents are uniquely incapable of being fair. “The mere fact that jurors know about this case is not an indication of bias,” Wu stated. He added, “This is the defendant coming into this argument with unclean hands, because the publicity in large part is his own.”
Jury selection for the hush money trial is slated to commence on April 15. This headline and story will be updated with additional developments as they occur.