Mayor of New York Eric Adams returned to the Manhattan federal courthouse Wednesday for a hearing in the wide-reaching corruption case that could send him to prison for decades if he is convicted. The former cop’s defense is asking the court to throw out at least one charge and punish the government for leaking confidential information.
Mayor Adams arrived in the courtroom early, wearing a navy blue suit. Adams placed his hand on a supporter’s shoulder prior to joining his attorneys at the defense table. He sat emotionless as District Judge Dale Ho started the hearing at 10:32.
Prosecutors maintained it is “quite likely” that additional charges may be filed — against other defendants and potential new cases. The investigation is continuing, they said. However, the defense scored a small win, demanding the Justice Department file rapid replies to motions filed earlier in the week as the mayor is continuing to stand by his right to a quick trial.
Federal prosecutors requested the court establish an October 30 deadline. However, the judge gave them until the 18th. The defense persisted in pushing for tight deadlines and demanded discovery disclosures by the first week in December, with the judge in agreement.
Defense attorney Alex Spiro continued to say the mayor’s side was eager to go to trial if the case made it through the motions filed earlier in the week and accused the government of dragging its feet. He is seeking a trial date in March and said he expects the mayor to be acquitted.
“They’re trying to jam up prosecutors because the defense has more resources, and they think they’re not ready,” said Los Angeles-based trial attorney and former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani.
Conversely, prosecutors have multiple witnesses, a paper trail, and text messages.
“It’s a strong case, but the government is going to have to rely on cooperator testimony to prove Adams’ intent,” said Rahmani. “The campaign finance and ethics violations are easier to prove than the quid pro quo for the bribery.”
Both sides agreed separately Tuesday to stop sharing certain materials with the media.
Mayor Adams is accused of soliciting illegal campaign contributions and accepting bribes from foreign nationals, then using those unlawful donations to rack up taxpayer cash in the form of “matching” grants that pay out $8 to 1.
Attorney’s Office alleges Adams used his position to receive benefits
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York has alleged that Adams used his position in government to receive benefits like fine dining and luxury travel from wealthy business leaders, including at least one official with the Turkish government.
Mayor Adams allegedly provided favors in trade, including assisting Turkey in getting fire department approvals to open a new Manhattan diplomatic high-rise, despite any concerns about fire safety. Defense for Adams has countered that he had no authority over the Manhattan building at the time, during which he was Brooklyn’s borough president, and therefore didn’t and couldn’t provide the alleged “official act” required to prove the case against him.
Adams has labeled the investigation as retaliation for his criticism of the border policies of the Biden-Harris administration.
Previously, the mayor blamed the White House for a New York City migrant crisis that overwhelmed its system of shelters. The influx of illegal immigrants accompanied a spike in robberies in the Big Apple, said city police earlier in the year.
At the mayor’s arraignment last week, he pleaded not guilty and was released without bail. He has denied any wrongdoing and maintained he won’t step down. If convicted, he faces a maximum of 45 years in prison.
On Monday, Adams’ lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the bribery charge and argued the allegations don’t meet the requirements under a federal statute otherwise known as Section 666. They cited a recent opinion of the Supreme Court in favor of a mayor in Indiana accused of bribery for collecting $13,000, which they argued was a legal payment for consulting services.
On Tuesday, lawyers for Adams filed a motion that sought an evidentiary hearing and sanctions against the DOJ, which they accused of leaking grand jury materials considered confidential to the press.
They also suggested that the appropriate remedy could be to throw out the indictment completely.
According to experts, leak investigations rarely impact a case.
“Leaks have happened in most high-profile corruption cases,” Anthony Capozollo, the former federal prosecutor who dealt with similar cases in the neighboring Eastern District of New York, “But they usually don’t result in a change in the outcome of a case.”
