Does Mayor Adams’ bribery charge hold up? This week’s hearing presents a key test.

Mayor Eric Adams’ legal battle against federal corruption charges faces a pivotal test on Friday, when a federal judge is expected to hear arguments over whether a bribery charge should be thrown out.

Out of the five counts against the mayor, the allegation that Adams traded political favors to Turkish officials in exchange for more than $100,000 in travel perks has captured the most public attention. Thanks to several recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, it’s also the most difficult one to prove.

The judge's ruling will provide a clue as to whether Adams can survive his current legal and political crisis — and whether prosecutors can send a message to elected officials that any kind of favor trading, especially with a foreign power, will be met with consequences.

Adams has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers have said they plan to contest all the charges and they have pushed back aggressively on the bribery charge.

In the weeks since the indictment, legal and political experts have questioned the strength of the bribery case. Some have observed that the scale of the alleged benefits appears underwhelming.

“It’s a little sleazy, but it doesn’t appear to be the crime of the century,” said Bradley Simon, a former prosecutor.

Adams received heavily discounted airfare on Turkish airlines, according to the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. At one point, prosecutors allege, he paid a total of $2,200 for two roundtrip tickets to Istanbul for himself and his partner, and the tickets were upgraded to business class for free. Prosecutors say the full value would have been around $15,000.

Years later, a new Turkish consulate opened in New York, and the indictment states that Adams pressured the city's Fire Department to ignore concerns about the building’s safety.

The defense team has said upgrades cost airlines nothing and that members of Congress routinely receive similar benefits. They have argued that Adams’ communications with fire officials around the consulate’s opening were not part of any bribe.

Daniel Richman, a former prosecutor who is now a professor at Columbia Law School, said criticisms of the case are understandable. He noted there is a perception that upgrades are “funny money.” But he also pointed out that the case arrives as national elections loom and the government is concerned about the threat of foreign influence.

“Context is really important,” Richman said. “However silly people think the upgrades are, that was enough to get this mayor to do exactly what a foreign power wanted him to do.”

Alex Spiro, a lawyer for Adams, did not respond to a request for comment.

Nicholas Biase, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney's office, declined to comment.

Many legal experts, including Richman and Simon, say a jury will likely hear more evidence that could be more damaging for Adams. Earlier this month, federal prosecutors told a judge they may bring additional charges against the mayor. There are also multiple ongoing investigations involving city officials close to Adams, including two deputy mayors and the former police commissioner.

“This is their opening salvo,” Simon said. “They are going to buttress their case with other facts.”

But as the case currently stands, legal and political observers say it has weaknesses. Former prosecutors have called the indictment “no slam dunk” and said Adams has a “solid fighting chance” of beating the bribery count. Former Mayor Bill de Blasio, who was the target of multiple investigations surrounding his fundraising, described the charges as “diffuse.”

Unlike traditional bribery schemes, the case against Adams isn’t based on a one-off trade where he's accused of explicitly agreeing to pressure FDNY officials to open the Turkish consulate in exchange for travel benefits. Instead, prosecutors argue that Adams began accepting the gifts, knowing that he would help Turkish officials “as opportunities arise.”

This theory of bribery has already faced scrutiny. Carrie Cohen, a former federal prosecutor who applied the theory in her case against former New York state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, said that in prior bribery cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated “a reluctance to interpret federal bribery statutes broadly to include conduct beyond a straight forward cash in hand to take a particular official act.”

Legal experts say the indictment could turn on the interpretation of three messages between Adams and the then-fire commissioner, Daniel Nigro, about the status of the Turkish consulate.

On Sept. 8, 2021, Adams allegedly told Nigro that Turkish officials needed a special letter from the FDNY. “They know they have some issues,” he added, according to the indictment, but said the letter would suffice for a temporary certificate of occupancy.

Two days later, prosecutors say, Adams sent another message: “They really need someone … by today if possible. If it is [im]possible please let me know and I will manage their expectation.”

Citing the latter sentence as an example, Adams’ lawyers say the messages show no evidence of pressure from Adams. “They contain no threats, coercion or even emphatic language,” they wrote in a recent court filing.

Prosecutors have argued the law doesn’t require the pressure to be “irresistible or unrelenting.” According to them, the fact that Adams tried to get fire officials “to change course” is enough to show him trying to put his thumb on the scale.

They have also pointed to another key exchange in the case. A Turkish official at one point instructed an Adams staffer to remind Adams of the support Turkey had given him and that it was now “his turn,” prosecutors allege.

Adams responded by saying, “I know,” according to the indictment.

“The natural reading of that exchange is that Adams was acknowledging a pre-existing bargain,” prosecutors wrote. They added that after securing the approval of the building’s opening, Adams “reached right back out to collect more payment, requesting what would amount to over $12,000 in luxury travel.”

Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia Law School who specializes in government ethics, described the exchange as “pretty close to an offer or a contingency.”

“If that conversation happened and if he did respond, that would suggest that he knew that what he was getting was not just nice stuff, but that there was a bribe,” he said.

The judge is expected to hear oral arguments from both sides during Friday’s hearing. If he asks questions, they could offer a sense of his thoughts on the case. There is no limit on how long he can take to rule on the motion, but Cohen, the former prosecutor, said she would expect a decision to come sooner rather than later.

Samantha Max contributed reporting.