tkam trial essay

• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Literature Notes
• Comparing To Kill a Mockingbird to Its Movie Version
• To Kill a Mockingbird at a Glance
• Book Summary
• Character List
• Summary and Analysis
• Part 1: Chapter 1
• Part 1: Chapters 2-3
• Part 1: Chapters 4-5
• Part 1: Chapters 6-7
• Part 1: Chapters 8-9
• Part 1: Chapters 10-11
• Part 2: Chapters 12-13
• Part 2: Chapters 14-16
• Part 2: Chapters 17-20
• Part 2: Chapters 21-23
• Part 2: Chapters 24-26
• Part 2: Chapters 27-28
• Part 2: Chapters 29-31
• Character Analysis
• Scout (Jean Louise) Finch
• Atticus Finch
• Dill Harris
• Boo Radley and Tom Robinson
• Aunt Alexandra and Miss Maudie Atkinson
• Bob and Mayella Ewell
• Character Map
• About To Kill a Mockingbird
• Harper Lee Biography
• Critical Essays
• Racial Relations in the Southern United States
• Famous Quotes from To Kill a Mockingbird
• Film Versions of To Kill a Mockingbird
• Full Glossary for To Kill a Mockingbird
• Essay Questions
• Practice Projects
• Cite this Literature Note

Critical Essays Comparing To Kill a Mockingbird to Its Movie Version

Introduction

The film version of To Kill a Mockingbird (1962), which stars Gregory Peck as Atticus and Mary Badham as Scout, is as much a classic as the novel itself. (The film received eight Academy Awards nominations and netted awards for Best Actor, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, and Best Art Direction — Set Decoration, Black and White.)

Ideally, a novel and its film version complement each other, which, on many levels, is the case with To Kill a Mockingbird. However, film can accomplish things that novels can't, and vice versa. Likewise, film has limitations that a novel doesn't. This essay explores some of the differences between To Kill a Mockingbird , the film and the novel.

By its nature, film is a visual medium, which makes a first-person story difficult to tell. To have Scout narrating throughout the film as she does in the book would prove distracting, so Scout as narrator is only presented to set the mood of a scene in the film. As a result, viewers don't get a strong sense of Scout's first-person narration as they do in the book; instead, they simply notice the childlike perspective portrayed in the story. (The film uses music to help reinforce the child's point-of-view. The music is very elementary, and much of the score is composed of single notes without chords or embellishments.)

Because the narration is not as straightforward in the film, the film seems to shift more to Jem's experiences. For example, Jem finds all the articles in the tree. Jem accompanies Atticus to tell Helen Robinson of her husband's death. Jem is left alone to watch his sister. Scout is still an important character, but the film expands on her brother's role.

A film has less time to tell its story and therefore often concentrates the events of a story into fewer characters; when a book makes the transition to film, characters and their actions are often combined. For instance, Miss Stephanie Crawford is Dill's aunt and Cecil Jacobs, not Francis Hancock, drives Scout to break her promise to Atticus about fighting. Aunt Alexandra isn't present in the movie at all, so the issue of Scout "acting like a lady" never plays a major role in the film.

Film also often introduces new characters to help develop the story line. In the film, Scout and Jem have a conversation about their deceased mother which brings her alive for the viewers; the book devotes a single paragraph to her. Viewers also meet Tom Robinson's children and father. His father isn't mentioned in the book, and his children receive only a brief mention.

The benefit of film is that viewers get to see the characters. They can put a face with a name, so to speak. And characters can say things with facial expressions, hand gestures, and posture that an author must describe to readers. Many people enjoy the advantage of being able to visualize a character; however, viewers can be thrown out of the story if the actor playing the part doesn't fit the reader's vision of the character. For instance, the actress who plays Miss Maudie is thin, much younger, and more conventional than Scout describes in the book, which takes some of the bite out of the character. On the other hand, Gregory Peck, by Lee's own assertion, is the perfect embodiment of Atticus Finch, which gives the character a far greater depth than the book, alone, can provide.

Because a film has a limited time in which to tell the story, events from a novel are invariably dropped when the book becomes a film. Although the film version of To Kill a Mockingbird includes every major event from the novel, the screenplay takes place over two years, not three, and many events are left out. For example, the children have virtually no contact with Mrs. Dubose, and the film never shows the inside of a classroom, so viewers don't experience any of the episodes with Miss Caroline, Miss Gates, and some of the other minor characters that create Maycomb's texture and layers.

Lee's novel is a coming-of-age story influenced by a major event in the community and within one family. Scout not only tries to understand and process the trial, but she's also wrestling with the expectations those around her have of little girls. The film, on the other hand, is a courtroom drama that happens to include something about the lead attorney's home life. In its film version, To Kill a Mockingbird only touches on the issues of femininity. The movie never gets into Maycomb's caste system, so viewers don't necessarily know that the Ewells are considered to be "trash."

The implied incest between Bob and Mayella Ewell is never discussed during the course of the trial. Unlike today's films, movies in 1962 weren't allowed to cover such controversial subject matter. Instead, films had to find ways to work around taboo subjects. In this case, the film works around the incest issue by showing Bob Ewell's unscrupulous behavior in other ways. For instance, he begins stalking Jem and Scout before Tom's trial begins, and viewers can see from Mayella's facial expressions in the courtroom that she's frightened of her father.

The courtroom scenes are condensed in the film. Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch delivers a shortened version of Atticus' closing arguments to the jury. The lines he does say are verbatim, but several points from the speech aren't included. Neither does the film explore the aftermath of the trial or portray the conversations Atticus has with his children in trying to help them understand the situation.

The film addresses the plight of African Americans only through the trial. Calpurnia is treated respectfully by everyone, the children never attend Calpurnia's church, and on the day of the trial, blacks and whites enter the courtroom together (although the blacks, and Scout, Jem, and Dill, sit separately in a balcony, just as they do in the book). Remember, though, that at the time this film was in theaters, audiences wouldn't have needed an explanation for these sorts of things. They knew first-hand the challenges African Americans faced. The idea that blacks would sit separate from whites would have been expected — or understood, at the very least — by anyone viewing the film.

Film is very much reflective of the original audience's culture. As a film ages, audiences need more information to fully grasp the story. The fact that the film version of To Kill a Mockingbird is still so powerful is a testament to a fine adaptation of a classic story.

Previous Racial Relations in the Southern United States

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — To Kill a Mockingbird — Prejudice in To Kill a Mockingbird

Prejudice in to Kill a Mockingbird

• Categories: Harper Lee To Kill a Mockingbird

About this sample

Words: 823 |

Published: Mar 20, 2024

Words: 823 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Racism in maycomb, classism and the cunninghams, sexism and gender roles, consequences of prejudice, potential for change.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 565 words

2 pages / 1072 words

3 pages / 1407 words

6.5 pages / 3030 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on To Kill a Mockingbird

To Kill a Mockingbird is a well-known novel by Harper Lee, published in 1960. Set in the 1930s during the Great Depression, it tells the story of a young girl, Scout Finch, and her family as they navigate life in a small [...]

A rhetorical analysis is a critical examination of a text to understand how the author uses language and devices to persuade, inform, or entertain the audience. It involves analyzing the text's structure, language, and style to [...]

Harper Lee's timeless novel, "To Kill a Mockingbird," is not just a compelling story set in the racially charged American South of the 1930s. It is a narrative rich with profound life lessons that continue to resonate with [...]

Moreover, the character of Calpurnia, the Finch family's African American housekeeper, provides another perspective on racism in the novel. Calpurnia serves as a surrogate mother to Scout and Jem, yet she is still treated as [...]

A timeless classic is a novel that resonates with readers and does not fade with time. No matter how old the book is, the novel is relevant and prominent in today’s society. For instance, if the book is in the historical genre, [...]

Description of Maycomb, Alabama Introduction to the Finch family: Scout, Jem, and Atticus Mention of Dill Harris and their fascination with Boo Radley Scout starting school The Radley Place and the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Trump Trial’s Extraordinary Opening

The first days of the criminal case against the former president have been mundane, even boring—and that’s remarkable.

This is The Trump Trials by George T. Conway III, a newsletter that chronicles the former president’s legal troubles. Sign up here .

The defendant nodded off a couple of times on Monday. And I have to confess, as a spectator in an overflow courtroom watching on closed-circuit television, so did I.

Legal proceedings can be like that. Mundane, even boring. That’s how the first couple of days of the trial in the People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Indictment No. 71543–2023, felt much of the time. Ordinary—despite being so extraordinary. And, frankly, that was comforting. The ordinary mechanics of the criminal-litigation process were applied fairly, efficiently, and methodically to a defendant of unparalleled notoriety, one who has devoted himself to undermining the rule of law.

Certainly the setting was ordinary. When the Criminal Courts Building, at 100 Centre Street in Lower Manhattan, first opened in 1941, an architectural critic lamented that the Art Deco structure, a New Deal/Public Works Administration project, was “ uncommunicative .” Eight decades later, it still has little to say. Raw and spartan, it’s a bit of a mystery to people who aren’t familiar with it (including me, a civil litigator who, despite having been admitted to the New York state bar some 35 years ago, practiced mostly in federal and Delaware courts). A pool reporter yesterday described the surroundings as “drab.”

Drab indeed, but busy—very busy. There’s never a want of bustle here, of the sort you would expect. As the former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann put it this week, 100 Centre is, “well, Dickensian—a beehive of activity with miscreants, state prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, probation officers, court security [and] families—in dark, dingy halls and courtrooms.” It’s a bit like New York City as a whole: How it functions, with the volume it handles, never ceases to amaze.

And how the court manages to keep track of things, Lord only knows. In contrast with the federal courts or even New York’s civil courts, it has no electronic, publicly accessible docket. The Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County on New York, Criminal Term, is, as one courthouse reporter said last month, “stuck in the past.” It’s a tribunal “where the official record is a disorganized and incomplete mass of paper with no accounting of what’s inside.” The records come in brown accordion folders—Redwelds, lawyers call them—and what judges and clerks decide to put in them is the record, and what they don’t is not.

But somehow it works. Somehow the court manages to dispose of thousands of cases a year, involving all manner of defendants and offenses. A calendar emailed to journalists by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office listing the week’s anticipated court appearances gives you the flavor. It catalogs names seemingly of many ethnicities, with a couple of corporate entities to boot. A hodgepodge of alleged charges, including the violent and the corrupt: robbery, conspiracy, forgery, criminal mischief, identity theft, enterprise corruption, stalking, murder, attempted murder, sex trafficking, grand larceny, attempted grand larceny, possession of a forged instrument, offering a false statement for filing.

And the list contained three cases involving the crime of falsifying business records, one of which was set for trial on Monday, April 15, in Part 59, Courtroom 1530—People v. Trump.

Nothing on the calendar, other than the defendant’s readily recognizable name, would have told you there was anything special about the case. In that sense, it was ordinary. But the hubbub outside—a handful of protesters, multiple television cameras, and a long line for the press and other spectators—made clear that something somewhat special was afoot. An overflow courtroom down the hall from the main courtroom offered a closed-circuit television feed of the proceedings. Those who had lined up went through an extra set of security screeners and machines—mandated, we were told, by the United States Secret Service.

But still, so much was ordinary—the stuff of the commencement of a criminal trial, housekeeping of the sort you’d see in virtually any court about to try a criminal case. That began promptly at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, when Judge Juan Merchan assumed the bench. There were loose ends for the judge to tie up, pending motions to decide. Merchan denied the defendant’s motion to recuse, reading, in even tones, an opinion from the bench. The motion was frivolous; the result unsurprising. And then the parties argued some motions in limine—pretrial efforts to exclude evidence.

For example, would the notorious Access Hollywood tape that rocked the 2016 presidential campaign be played for the jury?  The prosecution said it should be: An assistant district attorney said the tape would elucidate why the defendant and his campaign were so hell-bent, to the point of falsifying business records, on keeping additional instances of the defendant’s miscreant conduct with women out of the public eye. The defense, of course, argued that playing the tape would be prejudicial. After all, this wasn’t a case about sexual assault.

The judge allowed that the tape’s existence provided context for the business-records charges but ruled that actually showing the tape to the jury would be prejudicial. Instead, the jury would be given a transcript. And speaking of sexual assault, prosecutors tried to get in an excerpt from Trump’s deposition in the E. Jean Carroll sexual-assault and defamation cases in which Trump testified that he was a “star,” and that stars historically get to do to women what Trump said on the Access Hollywood tape that he liked to do to them. Judge Merchan rightly said no, he would not allow the jury to hear that. It would be too much, too beside the point of what this case (unlike the Carroll cases) is actually about.

But as unusual and colorful as the factual predicate for the evidentiary motions was, the argument wasn’t all that interesting. It was rather low-key, in fact. Perhaps that was because none of the proffered evidence was new. But it was also because the arguing of pretrial evidentiary motions, however crucial they may be (although these, frankly, weren’t), is seldom scintillating. I can’t imagine that Donald Trump and I were the only ones watching who dozed off.

Then came jury selection, which took the rest of Monday, all of yesterday, and will probably consume tomorrow and Friday as well. (The judge will be handling his other cases today.) That was a bit more interesting, but slow going at first. Again, the ordinary met the extraordinary. Ninety-six potential jurors were brought in. The judge provided an overview of the case in the broadest terms, describing the charges in a few sentences; explained what his role and what the jury’s would be; and read the names of the cast of characters (some would be witnesses, others would simply be mentioned, including—full disclosure—my ex-wife). Still, it was mundane. It was pretty much what a judge would say in any big case.

And jury selection was a bit tedious; in a case like this, it simply has to be. Jurors were asked to give oral answers—some 42 of them, including a number with multiple subparts—to a written questionnaire. In substance: Where do you live? What do you do? What’s your educational background? What news sources do you read? What’s your experience with the legal system? Have you ever been to a Trump rally or followed him on social media? Have you belonged to any anti-Trump groups? And on and on and and on. But the most important inquiries came toward the end of the list: questions asking whether the prospective jurors could be fair. Occasionally the judge would interject, when an unusual or unclear answer was given. And once in a while there was a moment of levity: One woman—in response to a question about having relatives or close friends in the legal field—noted that she had once dated a lawyer. “It ended fine,” she volunteered, with a flatness of tone that betrayed no hint of nostalgia or loss.

This process took well over a day, and included brief follow-up questioning—“voir dire”—by the lawyers for both sides. But the judge did take a shortcut, one that saved a great deal of effort: After describing the case, but before proceeding to the individual-by-individual, question-by-question process, he asked the entire group the bottom-line question: Do any of you think you couldn’t judge the case fairly? Roughly two-thirds of this first batch of potential jurors said they couldn’t. That was extraordinary—a reflection of the fact that everyone knows who the defendant is, and that not many people lack a strong opinion about him.

And during the lawyers’ voir dire, a few interesting moments did occur, mostly when Trump’s lawyers pulled out social-media posts that they claimed showed possible bias on the part of the remaining candidates in the jury pool. One man was stricken by the court for cause because he once posted that Trump should be locked up.  The Trump lawyers attempted, but failed, to get the court to strike a woman whose husband had posted some joking commentary about the former president. The judge’s response: That’s all you have? He allowed the juror to stay, and left it to counsel to decide whether to use their limited number of peremptory strikes.

In the end, for two days, the extraordinary intertwined with the ordinary, as it should in a case like this one. As one young woman from the Upper East Side, now to be known as Juror No. 2,  put it during the selection process, “No one is above the law.” Let’s hope that sentiment prevails.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Trump lawyers say Stormy Daniels refused subpoena outside a Brooklyn bar, papers left ‘at her feet’

Jury selection in Donald Trump’s hush money trial has encountered new setbacks as two seated jurors were excused. Attorneys now need to pick 13 more jurors to serve on the panel.(AP Video: David R. Martin)

FILE - Stormy Daniels appears at an event, May 23, 2018, in West Hollywood, Calif. The hush money trial of former President Donald Trump begins Monday, April 15, 2024, with jury selection. It’s the first criminal trial of a former U.S. commander-in-chief. The charges in the trial center on $130,000 in payments that Trump’s company made to his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen. He paid that sum on Trump’s behalf to keep Daniels from going public, a month before the election, with her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier. (AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu, File)

• Copy Link copied

Former President Donald Trump approaches to speak to reporters as he leaves a Manhattan courtroom after the second day of his criminal trial, Tuesday, April 16, 2024 in New York. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, Pool)

The latest: Get live updates from Donald Trump’s hush money trial

NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump’s legal team says it tried serving Stormy Daniels a subpoena as she arrived for an event at a bar in Brooklyn last month, but the porn actor, who is expected to be a witness at the former president’s criminal trial , refused to take it and walked away.

A process server working for Trump’s lawyers said he approached Daniels with papers demanding information related to a documentary recently released about her life and involvement with Trump, but was forced to “leave them at her feet,” according to a court filing made public Wednesday.

“I stated she was served as I identified her and explained to her what the documents were,” process server Dominic DellaPorte wrote. “She did not acknowledge me and kept walking inside the venue, and she had no expression on her face.”

The encounter, prior to a screening of the “Stormy” film at the 3 Dollar Bill nightclub, has touched off a monthlong battle between Trump’s lawyers and Daniels’ attorney that continued this week as the presumptive Republican nominee’s criminal trial began in Manhattan.

Trump’s lawyers are asking Judge Juan M. Merchan to force Daniels to comply with the subpoena. In their filing, they included a photo they said DellaPorte took of Daniels as she strode away.

Daniels’ lawyer Clark Brewster claims they never received the paperwork. He described the requests as an “unwarranted fishing expedition” with no relevance to Trump’s criminal trial.

“The process — instituted on the eve of trial — appears calculated to cause harassment and/or intimidation of a lay witness,” Brewster wrote in an April 9 letter to Merchan. Brewster didn’t immediately reply to a message from The Associated Press seeking comment.

The hush money case is the first of Trump’s four criminal cases to go to trial. Seven jurors have been seated so far. Jury selection is set to resume Thursday.

Daniels is expected to testify about a $130,000 payment she got in 2016 from one of Trump’s lawyers at the time, Michael Cohen, in order to stop her from speaking publicly about a sexual encounter she said she had with Trump years earlier.

Cohen was later reimbursed by Trump’s company for that payment. Trump is accused of falsifying his company’s records to hide the nature of that payment, and other work he did to bury negative stories during the 2016 campaign.

Trump pleaded not guilty last year to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. He denies having a sexual encounter with Daniels. His lawyers argue the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses, and were recorded correctly.

In a separate filing made public Wednesday, the Manhattan district attorney’s office said that if Trump chooses to testify at the trial, prosecutors plan to challenge his credibility by questioning him about his recent legal setbacks. The filing was made last month under seal.

Trump was recently ordered to pay a $454 million civil penalty following a trial in which a judge ruled he had lied about his wealth on financial statements. In another trial, a jury said he was liable for $83.3 million for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll after she accused him of sexual assault.

Merchan said he plans to hold a hearing Friday to decide whether that will be allowed.

Under New York law, prosecutors can question witnesses about past legal matters in certain circumstances. Trump’s lawyers are opposed. Trump has said he wants to testify, but he is not required to and can always change his mind.

As for the subpoena dispute, it marks the latest attempt by Trump’s lawyers to knock loose potentially damaging information about Daniels, a key prosecution witness.

They are demanding an array of documents related to the promotion and editing of the documentary, “Stormy,” which explores Daniels’ career in the adult film industry and rise to celebrity since her alleged involvement with Trump became publicly known.

They are also requesting Daniels reveal how much, if anything, she was compensated for the film.

Trump’s lawyers contend the film’s premiere last month on NBC’s Peacock streaming service — a week before the trial was originally scheduled to start — stoked negative publicity about Trump, muddying his ability to get a fair trial.

In the filings made public Wednesday, Trump’s attorneys accuse Daniels of “plainly seeking to promote her brand and make money based on her status as a witness.”

The subpoena also demands communications between Daniels and other likely witnesses in the trial, including Cohen and Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who alleges she had an affair with Trump. It also requests any communications between Daniels and Carroll.

Earlier this month, Merchan blocked an attempt by Trump to subpoena NBC Universal for information related to the documentary. He wrote that subpoena and the demands therein “are the very definition of a fishing expedition.”

Man in critical condition after setting himself ablaze near Trump trial courthouse

A man who lit himself on fire Friday across the street from the Manhattan courthouse where former president Donald Trump is facing a criminal hush money trial is in critical condition, New York City police said.

The man walked into Collect Pond Park around 1:30 p.m., removed several pamphlets from his backpack and tossed them on the ground, Chief Jeffrey Maddrey told reporters. He then pulled out a canister of liquid accelerant, doused himself with it and lit himself on fire, the chief said. The man took a few steps before falling onto a police barrier and then to the ground.

Civilians and officers ran into the park, and used coats and fire extinguishers to try to put out the blaze before firefighters arrived and fully extinguished it.

Paramedics transported the man — identified by police as Maxwell Azzarello of St. Augustine, Fla. — to a hospital, where he was intubated, according to New York City fire officials. Four police officers were treated for minor injuries.

The pamphlets Azzarello, 37, threw on the ground promoted various conspiracy theories, including ones about Ponzi schemes and local educational institutions being fronts for the mob, Joe Kenny, the police department’s chief of detectives, told reporters.

Azzarello posted online about his pending self-immolation before going to the park Friday, police confirmed. In a more than 2,600-word Substack post, he said his “extreme act of protest” was a response to a “multi-trillion-dollar Ponzi scheme” created by the wealthy to shatter the global economy. He also theorized that members of the public were “victims of a totalitarian con.”

He arrived in New York City between Saturday and Friday without his family’s awareness, police said. They added that Azzarello was not previously on their radar and did not appear to be targeting a particular person or group Friday.

Police emphasized that Azzarello did not breach the security protocols in place for Trump’s trial. But Maddrey said the department was still “very concerned” about the incident and will assess whether it needs to update its security plan.

Julie Berman, 56, who came to the plaza to photograph people protesting for and against Trump, said she saw Azzarello set himself on fire. He had a sign saying something about Trump and President Biden working together to orchestrate a “coup,” she said, and another alleging some kind of “Ponzi scheme.”

Azzarello told her to get back and then doused himself with the accelerant, threw the fliers in the air, and then doused himself again before flicking a lighter and setting himself on fire, she said.

“It happened so fast and took my mind so long to catch up,” Berman said, adding that she initially thought the liquid was water.

Fred Gates, a passing cyclist, said he watched in disbelief as the man took two small gas cans out of his backpack.

“As it became apparent that he was going to light himself on fire, I and everyone else ran away from him,” Gates said. He added: “He was slow, he was calm.”

If you are in crisis, please call, text or chat with the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline at 988, or contact the Crisis Text Line by texting TALK to 741741.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

What Sentencing Could Look Like if Trump Is Found Guilty

By Norman L. Eisen

Mr. Eisen is the author of “Trying Trump: A Guide to His First Election Interference Criminal Trial.”

For all the attention to and debate over the unfolding trial of Donald Trump in Manhattan, there has been surprisingly little of it paid to a key element: its possible outcome and, specifically, the prospect that a former and potentially future president could be sentenced to prison time.

The case — brought by Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, against Mr. Trump — represents the first time in our nation’s history that a former president is a defendant in a criminal trial. As such, it has generated lots of debate about the case’s legal strength and integrity, as well as its potential impact on Mr. Trump’s efforts to win back the White House.

A review of thousands of cases in New York that charged the same felony suggests something striking: If Mr. Trump is found guilty, incarceration is an actual possibility. It’s not certain, of course, but it is plausible.

Jury selection has begun, and it’s not too soon to talk about what the possibility of a sentence, including a prison sentence, would look like for Mr. Trump, for the election and for the country — including what would happen if he is re-elected.

The case focuses on alleged interference in the 2016 election, which consisted of a hush-money payment Michael Cohen, the former president’s fixer at the time, made in 2016 to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who said she had an affair with Mr. Trump. Mr. Bragg is arguing that the cover-up cheated voters of the chance to fully assess Mr. Trump’s candidacy.

This may be the first criminal trial of a former president in American history, but if convicted, Mr. Trump’s fate is likely to be determined by the same core factors that guide the sentencing of every criminal defendant in New York State Court.

Comparable cases. The first factor is the base line against which judges measure all sentences: how other defendants have been treated for similar offenses. My research encompassed almost 10,000 cases of felony falsifying business records that have been prosecuted across the state of New York since 2015. Over a similar period, the Manhattan D.A. has charged over 400 of these cases . In roughly the first year of Mr. Bragg’s tenure, his team alone filed 166 felony counts for falsifying business records against 34 people or companies.

Contrary to claims that there will be no sentence of incarceration for falsifying business records, when a felony conviction involves serious misconduct, defendants can be sentenced to some prison time. My analysis of the most recent data indicates that approximately one in 10 cases in which the most serious charge at arraignment is falsifying business records in the first degree and in which the court ultimately imposes a sentence, results in a term of imprisonment.

To be clear, these cases generally differ from Mr. Trump’s case in one important respect: They typically involve additional charges besides just falsifying records. That clearly complicates what we might expect if Mr. Trump is convicted.

Nevertheless, there are many previous cases involving falsifying business records along with other charges where the conduct was less serious than is alleged against Mr. Trump and prison time was imposed. For instance, Richard Luthmann was accused of attempting to deceive voters — in his case, impersonating New York political figures on social media in an attempt to influence campaigns. He pleaded guilty to three counts of falsifying business records in the first degree (as well as to other charges). He received a sentence of incarceration on the felony falsification counts (although the sentence was not solely attributable to the plea).

A defendant in another case was accused of stealing in excess of $50,000 from her employer and, like in this case, falsifying one or more invoices as part of the scheme. She was indicted on a single grand larceny charge and ultimately pleaded guilty to one felony count of business record falsification for a false invoice of just under $10,000. She received 364 days in prison.

To be sure, for a typical first-time offender charged only with run-of-the-mill business record falsification, a prison sentence would be unlikely. On the other hand, Mr. Trump is being prosecuted for 34 counts of conduct that might have changed the course of American history.

Seriousness of the crime. Mr. Bragg alleges that Mr. Trump concealed critical information from voters (paying hush money to suppress an extramarital relationship) that could have harmed his campaign, particularly if it came to light after the revelation of another scandal — the “Access Hollywood” tape . If proved, that could be seen not just as unfortunate personal judgment but also, as Justice Juan Merchan has described it, an attempt “to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.”

History and character. To date, Mr. Trump has been unrepentant about the events alleged in this case. There is every reason to believe that will not change even if he is convicted, and lack of remorse is a negative at sentencing. Justice Merchan’s evaluation of Mr. Trump’s history and character may also be informed by the other judgments against him, including Justice Arthur Engoron’s ruling that Mr. Trump engaged in repeated and persistent business fraud, a jury finding that he sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll and a related defamation verdict by a second jury.

Justice Merchan may also weigh the fact that Mr. Trump has been repeatedly held in contempt , warned , fined and gagged by state and federal judges. That includes for statements he made that exposed witnesses, individuals in the judicial system and their families to danger. More recently, Mr. Trump made personal attacks on Justice Merchan’s daughter, resulting in an extension of the gag order in the case. He now stands accused of violating it again by commenting on witnesses.

What this all suggests is that a term of imprisonment for Mr. Trump, while far from certain for a former president, is not off the table. If he receives a sentence of incarceration, perhaps the likeliest term is six months, although he could face up to four years, particularly if Mr. Trump chooses to testify, as he said he intends to do , and the judge believes he lied on the stand . Probation is also available, as are more flexible approaches like a sentence of spending every weekend in jail for a year.

We will probably know what the judge will do within 30 to 60 days of the end of the trial, which could run into mid-June. If there is a conviction, that would mean a late summer or early fall sentencing.

Justice Merchan would have to wrestle in the middle of an election year with the potential impact of sentencing a former president and current candidate.

If Mr. Trump is sentenced to a period of incarceration, the reaction of the American public will probably be as polarized as our divided electorate itself. Yet as some polls suggest — with the caveat that we should always be cautious of polls early in the race posing hypothetical questions — many key swing state voters said they would not vote for a felon.

If Mr. Trump is convicted and then loses the presidential election, he will probably be granted bail, pending an appeal, which will take about a year. That means if any appeals are unsuccessful, he will most likely have to serve any sentence starting sometime next year. He will be sequestered with his Secret Service protection; if it is less than a year, probably in Rikers Island. His protective detail will probably be his main company, since Mr. Trump will surely be isolated from other inmates for his safety.

If Mr. Trump wins the presidential election, he can’t pardon himself because it is a state case. He will be likely to order the Justice Department to challenge his sentence, and department opinions have concluded that a sitting president could not be imprisoned, since that would prevent the president from fulfilling the constitutional duties of the office. The courts have never had to address the question, but they could well agree with the Justice Department.

So if Mr. Trump is convicted and sentenced to a period of incarceration, its ultimate significance is probably this: When the American people go to the polls in November, they will be voting on whether Mr. Trump should be held accountable for his original election interference.

What questions do you have about Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial so far?

Please submit them below. Our trial experts will respond to a selection of readers in a future piece.

Norman L. Eisen investigated the 2016 voter deception allegations as counsel for the first impeachment and trial of Donald Trump and is the author of “Trying Trump: A Guide to His First Election Interference Criminal Trial.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .