(Bloomberg) -- New York Mayor Eric Adams will begin a corruption trial in April, exactly when he had expected to be in the midst of a tough reelection campaign.
A federal judge in Manhattan set April 21 as the trial’s start date, over objections by Adams’ lawyer that anything later than March posed “grave, grave democratic concerns.” The trial could conclude less than two months before a primary election in which Adams faces more than half a dozen serious challengers.
Many of Adams’ critics have raised questions about his ability to manage the city while he defends himself in a criminal trial as many New Yorkers begin to tune in to the primary election. Adams has pleaded not guilty. His lawyer, Alex Spiro, has said he would ask for dismissal of all the charges, which he must do by Dec. 18.
Spiro had pushed for a trial date that would have yielded a verdict by the start of April.
The trial date issue “impacts the ability of the City of New York to determine who its leadership is,” Spiro told US District Judge Dale Ho in a hearing on Friday. The mayor will be “either running with this hanging over his head, or he’s running with the trial completed.”
Bribery Charge
Prosecutors have invoked special procedures to screen classified information that may need to be exchanged in the case. And they have told Ho that they are likely to file a new indictment adding one or more defendants to the case.
Adams, 64, was indicted in September on charges he accepted free and discounted luxury travel from Turkish businessmen and a government official. In turn, he allegedly pressured the city’s fire department to permit the opening of a Turkish consulate office tower in Manhattan without the required fire safety inspections.
The judge set the April 21 trial date after hearing argument on Adams’ request to toss the bribery charge, one of five he faces. John Bash, a lawyer for Adams, argued that it “does not state a federal offense and therefore should be dismissed.”
Bash said the alleged exchange of favors on which the count is based isn’t sufficiently specific to satisfy the law. He said Adams, who was Brooklyn borough president at the time the alleged bribery began, didn’t have the official authority to block a fire inspection — half of the quid pro quo that prosecutors claim for the charge.
Impact of a Dismissal
Assistant US Attorney Hagan Scotten argued that the bribery allegations are sufficiently detailed to survive a motion to dismiss. Adams knew he was agreeing to help his Turkish contacts when he began accepting valuable perks from them. In return, he later agreed to pressure fire department officials to hold off on the required inspection of the consulate, Scotten said.
A decision throwing out the bribery charge would reduce the legal territory Adams has to cover in his defense and help him argue to New York voters that the case is flawed, as he tries to hang on to his job. Judge Ho said he hopes to rule “shortly.”
A ruling in Adams’ favor would eliminate the bribery claims but leave serious allegations in place, including soliciting and accepting illegal campaign contributions from foreign citizens and straw donors for his 2021 campaign, as well as defrauding the city out of matching funds.
Aggressive Defense
Spiro is pursuing an aggressive defense, even asking the court to look into leaks to the press that he says prosecutors made of secret grand jury information. He says they sought to “manufacture” a public perception that Adams was a criminal before disclosing what he called an “underwhelming indictment.”
On Oct. 31, Ho denied Spiro’s request for an evidentiary hearing over the leaks. Adams had asked for sanctions on the government, possibly including dismissal of the case. Ho ruled that the mayor had failed to show sufficient evidence that the government was responsible for the leaks, but warned both sides that the case is to be tried “in the courtroom and not in the press.”
The case is US v. Adams, 24-cr-556, US District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
--With assistance from Laura Nahmias and Chris Dolmetsch.
(Updates with quotes, details of case and further context throughout, starting in third paragraph.)
©2024 Bloomberg L.P.