How Prosecutors Made the Case Against Trump

For years, the New York legal community debated, fought and even, in at least two cases, resigned over the fate of the Manhattan district attorney’s investigation into Donald J. Trump. Some commentators predicted it would be the downfall of the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg.

But on Thursday, a jury swiftly and decisively vindicated the risky strategy that Mr. Bragg employed to bring 34 felony counts against the former president.

Prosecutors were helped by state election law, two judges who allowed their novel legal theory to proceed and their ability to make the most of a high-risk witness, Mr. Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen.

The jury’s verdict — guilty on all 34 felony counts — represented a landmark victory for Mr. Bragg, who claimed a place in history as the first prosecutor to indict, prosecute and convict a former U.S. president.

The job of prosecutors was to persuade jurors that Mr. Trump had falsified records to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to derail his 2016 presidential campaign. They faced an uphill battle, taking jurors on a complex and winding decade-long journey from a Lake Tahoe, Nev., celebrity golf tournament all the way to the Oval Office.

They were buoyed by the fine print of New York State law. Prosecutors needed to show only that Mr. Trump “caused” the business records to be false, rather than orchestrating the scheme or personally falsifying them.