Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Who are the prosecutors and key witnesses in the case charging Donald J. Trump with 34 counts?
Executive Summary
The primary claim is that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, led by Alvin Bragg, prosecuted Donald J. Trump on a 34-count indictment alleging falsification of business records tied to hush-money payments, with a cadre of assistant prosecutors including Joshua Steinglass, Susan Hoffinger, Matthew Colangelo, Christopher Conroy, Becky Mangold, Katherine Ellis and others leading courtroom questioning; key prosecution witnesses identified across reporting include Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford), David Pecker, Hope Hicks, Jeff McConney, Karen McDougal and several Trump Organization employees, and the trial produced documentary and testimonial evidence the prosecution said proved a scheme to conceal payments [1] [2] [3] [4]. The record shows agreement on the core cast of prosecutors and principal witnesses, while reporting differs on peripheral participants, exact roles, and post-conviction procedural timing, which this analysis reconciles and dates for context [5] [6] [7].
1. Who led the courtroom fight — names and roles that mattered
The Manhattan prosecutors were led by District Attorney Alvin Bragg and a named team of senior and line trial attorneys who publicly took the courtroom lead, notably Joshua Steinglass, Susan Hoffinger, Matthew Colangelo, Christopher Conroy, Becky Mangold, Katherine Ellis and other ADAs listed on trial documents and press announcements; press summaries consistently describe these attorneys as the ones who questioned witnesses and presented documentary evidence to the jury [1] [4]. Reporting from the trial dates in April–May 2024 and subsequent summaries cite Steinglass and Hoffinger by name in live testimony coverage, and the DA’s office release and trial filings list senior counsel such as Colangelo and Conroy among leaders directing investigation and prosecution strategy, establishing a consistent attribution of responsibility to this prosecutorial team [2] [8].
2. The witness roster the prosecution put on — who testified and why it mattered
The central witnesses the prosecution relied on included Michael Cohen, who testified about arranging and being reimbursed for payments; Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford), who testified about the underlying sexual encounter and the hush-money arrangement; and David Pecker, who testified about “catch-and-kill” efforts at American Media Inc., with additional testimony from Hope Hicks, Jeff McConney, Karen McDougal, and Trump Organization employees who authenticated records and described internal bookkeeping practices [3] [8] [7]. Multiple outlets covering the May 2024 trial emphasize Cohen as a pivotal witness who placed Trump at the center of repayment discussions and described communications that prosecutors argued linked Trump to decisions to conceal payments, while Daniels and Pecker provided corroborating narrative and documentary context on the payments and news-suppression efforts [6] [4].
3. What evidence prosecutors presented — documents, money trails, and testimony
Prosecutors presented a mix of documents and testimony: invoices, checks, bank statements, wire transfers, phone logs, text messages, handwritten notes, and direct witness testimony to connect reimbursements and accounting entries to a purported scheme to falsify business records; reporters detailed how the prosecution leaned on Cohen’s testimony plus corroborating financial records and staff witnesses to show the entries were intended to conceal payments [1] [8]. Coverage of the trial highlighted how Trump Organization accounting staff and the former comptroller authenticated records and a witness like Jeff McConney verified a key transfer, while Pecker and Daniels provided narrative corroboration, creating a combined evidentiary picture prosecutors argued met the elements of first-degree falsifying business records [3] [4].
4. Where reporting diverged — witness lists, defense strategy, and procedural timing
While outlets concur on primary prosecutors and core witnesses, they diverge on peripheral witness names, the number of witnesses who testified, and specific courtroom roles: some reports list 22 witnesses and name additional Trump Organization figures and AMI editors, while others emphasize a narrower set led by Cohen, Daniels, and Pecker; defense witnesses were few and focused on impeachment of Cohen’s credibility [1] [8] [9]. Reporting also differs on post-trial timing: sources record trial dates in April–May 2024 and note conviction on May 30, 2024, with subsequent sentencing scheduling described variously—initial July dates pushed to November 2024 and January 10, 2025—producing disparate timelines across summaries that reflect evolving court orders and appeals filings [2] [5].
5. What to watch in reconciling accounts — credibility, agendas, and public framing
Discrepancies among accounts reflect differing emphases: outlets that foreground Cohen and Daniels spotlight the testimonial backbone of the prosecution, while other coverage stressing Pecker and AMI highlights corporate “catch-and-kill” motives; these emphases map to each source’s reporting focus and possibly editorial priorities in covering political or media aspects of the case [3] [7]. Readers should note that prosecutorial team lists are consistent across primary sources, witness lists show strong overlap for the central trio (Cohen, Daniels, Pecker), and procedural timing shifts in reporting track real court rescheduling and appeals activity reported across May 2024 through January 2025 summaries, so the core factual claims about who prosecuted and who testified are well-supported even where smaller details diverge [1] [6] [9].