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 what evidence did they cite in the 2023 34-count indictment of Donald J. Trump?
Executive summary
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office brought the March–April 2023 grand-jury case that produced the 34‑count indictment charging Donald J. Trump with falsifying business records tied to alleged hush‑money payments around the 2016 campaign; the indictment lists a series of reimbursements and record entries that prosecutors say concealed those payments and related “catch‑and‑kill” transactions [1] [2]. The public reporting and the indictment itself emphasize the $130,000 Michael Cohen payment to Stormy Daniels and additional alleged payoffs and arrangements described as intended to suppress stories that could harm Trump’s candidacy [2] [3].
1. Who the prosecutors were — the Manhattan DA’s team and Alvin Bragg’s office
The prosecution was carried out by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led publicly by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who announced the indictment and framed it as alleging falsified business records to hide crimes that would have affected voters in 2016 [1] [3]. Reporting and timeline summaries repeatedly identify Bragg’s office as the entity that empaneled a grand jury and pursued the case leading to the March 30, 2023, indictment [4] [5].
2. What the 34 counts formally charged — falsifying business records, elevated to felonies
The indictment charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree under New York law; prosecutors alleged the entries were fraudulent and part of a scheme to conceal payments and related conduct around the 2016 campaign [4] [6]. News accounts note that falsifying business records is normally a misdemeanor but that Manhattan prosecutors elevated the counts to felonies by alleging the records concealed other criminal conduct tied to election‑related unlawful means [7] [3].
3. Core evidence and transactions prosecutors cited in public reporting
Prosecutors’ narrative, as summarized in the indictment and in contemporaneous reporting, centers on a $130,000 payment Michael Cohen made to Stormy Daniels in the final days of the 2016 campaign that Cohen says was at Trump’s direction, and prosecutors say Trump reimbursed Cohen later [2] [3]. The indictment and press coverage also reference two “catch‑and‑kill” arrangements involving American Media (the National Enquirer’s parent) and other payouts — including a reported $30,000 payment tied to a former doorman’s alleged story — described as additional efforts to squash damaging stories [2] [8].
4. Documentary and testimonial evidence the prosecution relied on (publicly reported)
Public material from the case and reporting pointed to a mix of transaction records, checks, business entries, and witness testimony used to authenticate records and recount reimbursement paths; prosecutors summarized 34 business records they say were falsified and presented phone records, texts, tweets and other documentary exhibits during the grand‑jury and pretrial process [4] [6]. Media accounts and the indictment itself mention charts and summaries prosecutors used to link specific entries to the alleged concealment scheme [4].
5. How prosecutors framed motive and the election connection
Bragg’s statement accompanying the indictment asserted that the falsified records were part of efforts to hide information from the voting public and thus to protect Trump’s 2016 campaign, a framing the office used to justify elevating the counts and to connect the conduct to election integrity concerns [1] [3]. Subsequent trial reporting and conviction summaries likewise quote prosecutors and the verdict language tying the payments and recordkeeping to a scheme aimed at influencing the election [9] [10].
6. Defense and skeptical perspectives reported contemporaneously
Legal commentators and Trump’s lawyers called the theory “convoluted” or “shaky,” arguing that the indictment did not clearly identify the underlying crimes that would turn misdemeanors into felonies and that the charges could be viewed as “piling on”; the defense consistently pleaded not guilty and contested the prosecution’s legal theory and evidence [11] [7]. Coverage also records the defense contention that some evidence related to presidential acts might be shielded under later immunity arguments — a point raised after trial developments [7].
7. What available sources do not mention or clarify
Available sources do not mention in this set of documents the complete roster of individual line prosecutors assigned to try the case in court (other than the Manhattan DA’s office generally) nor do they provide the full text of each of the 34 counts in this summary set beyond characterizations; readers seeking names of all trial attorneys or a clause‑by‑clause recitation of the indictment should consult the indictment document itself or detailed court filings not included among these sources (not found in current reporting).
Context note: contemporary reporting and later trial coverage treated the Cohen payment and related “catch‑and‑kill” arrangements as the evidentiary spine of the indictment, while defenseists and some former prosecutors questioned whether the indictment’s elevation to felonies was legally robust — a central legal dispute that shaped pretrial strategy and appeals [2] [11] [7].