Fact check: Which witnesses are expected to testify in the trial of Donald Trump's 34 felony charges?

1. Who the press flagged as the most consequential witnesses — and why they mattered

Contemporaneous reporting identified Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Clifford), David Pecker, Hope Hicks, Karen McDougal, Dino Sajudin and Dylan Howard repeatedly as the most consequential potential witnesses because each had direct ties to the payments, communications or media arrangements at the center of the prosecution’s theory. Journalists explained that Cohen, as Trump’s former lawyer who arranged payment, had the clearest firsthand knowledge of the alleged hush‑money transactions; Daniels and McDougal were the alleged payees whose stories motivated the payments; Pecker and Dylan Howard were central to the “catch‑and‑kill” narrative around the National Enquirer; and Hicks was cited for her proximity to Trump’s messaging and knowledge of internal communications ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting framed these names as the prosecution’s linchpins while also noting that the defense planned to challenge credibility and motive.

2. A much larger cast: why some outlets listed dozens of potential witnesses

Some outlets compiled long lists — as many as 41 potential witnesses — because the prosecution could draw on multiple business associates, journalists, aides and intermediaries to corroborate elements of the scheme and the state of mind necessary for criminal liability. That approach reflected prosecutorial strategy to build redundancy and resilience against credibility attacks, with sources such as former aides, National Enquirer staff, and business records potentially filling gaps ^{[3] [7]}. Coverage emphasized breadth: the core witnesses were the most newsworthy names, but the trial record could incorporate many lesser‑known witnesses to support transactional facts, timelines and document authentication.

3. What actually happened in court: testimony and the verdict

Subsequent trial reports and post‑verdict coverage indicate that several of the named witnesses did testify, and the trial concluded with a guilty verdict on all 34 counts. Journalists who covered the proceedings documented key testimony from figures like Michael Cohen, David Pecker and Stormy Daniels, and described how prosecutors used their accounts to link payments and recordings to false business records and intent ^{[4] [8]}. The Manhattan trial’s outcome was widely reported as a conviction in late May 2024, underscoring that the witnesses many outlets expected to appear played roles in the courtroom record ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Disagreements, credibility fights, and why outlets emphasized different names

News organizations varied in their emphasis because different outlets screened for narrative salience, legal significance or access. Some prioritized witnesses who offered dramatic public testimony (e.g., Daniels), others focused on documentary linchpins (e.g., Cohen’s invoices and communications), and still others traced the corporate “catch‑and‑kill” angle through Pecker and tabloid operators ^{[2] [7]}. Coverage also highlighted defense strategy to attack witness credibility — especially Cohen’s prior criminal plea and payments — which produced intense media scrutiny and led outlets to note competing interpretations of the same witness roster. These differences reflect editorial choices and legal strategy rather than contradictions in the underlying witness lists.

5. What to watch in the public record and remaining open questions

The public record shows a core group of witnesses were both publicly expected and ultimately central to the prosecution’s case, but questions remain about the full universe of supporting witnesses and the precise weight each carried in the jury’s decision. Detailed trial transcripts, court filings and contemporaneous reporting from April–May 2024 provide the factual road map: core witnesses named repeatedly in early lists appear in the trial record, while dozens of potential witnesses remained cited as backups or corroborators ^{[1] [3] [4]}. Readers should consult official court transcripts and the documented trial coverage for granular attribution of testimony and exhibit use if they seek the definitive chain of who testified and on which factual points ^{[2] [4]}.

6. The media and legal lenses: agendas worth noting

Coverage of expected witnesses carried distinct agendas: some outlets foregrounded witnesses that underscore prosecutorial narrative and public accountability, while others amplified defense‑friendly angles emphasizing impeachment of credibility or political motivations. Prosecutors framed witness lists as evidence of a coordinated scheme; defense commentators framed the same lists as politically motivated or comprised of unreliable actors. Identifying these framings helps readers separate the factual roster of expected/testifying witnesses from interpretive spins applied by different media and legal actors ^{[2] [6] [7]}.