Trump NY Case
Trump Seeks Dismissal of Conviction in New York Hush Money Case
In a dramatic legal maneuver, former President Donald Trump has requested that a New York judge dismiss his conviction in the high-profile hush money case involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump's legal team has argued that the conviction should be vacated in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity, which they claim renders key evidence used in the trial inadmissible.
The Supreme Court's decision, handed down on July 1, asserts that presidents are entitled to "absolute" immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed during their term. Trump's attorneys have seized upon this ruling, contending that evidence related to Trump's official actions as president was improperly admitted during his trial, thus tainting the jury's verdict.
Trump was found guilty on May 30 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with a scheme to silence Daniels, who alleged an affair with Trump that threatened to derail his 2016 presidential campaign. The prosecution argued that the payments to Daniels constituted a form of election interference, as they were intended to prevent damaging information from reaching voters.
In a 55-page motion filed on July 11, Trump's lawyers argued that the trial was fundamentally flawed due to the inclusion of evidence that should have been protected under the Supreme Court's presidential immunity doctrine. They specifically pointed to testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and other officials, as well as Trump's social media posts and government ethics disclosures, as examples of evidence that should have been excluded.
"Because of the implications for the institution of the Presidency, the use of official-acts evidence was a structural error under the federal Constitution that tainted the grand jury proceedings as well as the trial," defense lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote in the filing.
Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, has postponed Trump's sentencing to September 18 to allow time for consideration of the motion. The Manhattan District Attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, has been given until July 24 to respond to Trump's arguments. While prosecutors have dismissed Trump's claims as lacking merit, they did not oppose the delay in sentencing.
The Supreme Court's ruling has introduced a new layer of complexity to the case. Legal experts suggest that Judge Merchan will need to address two critical questions: whether the Supreme Court's decision would have limited some of the evidence and testimony presented at trial, and whether the jury relied on that evidence when reaching its guilty verdict.
Former federal prosecutor Jarrod Schaeffer noted that the Supreme Court's decision on immunity included protections for Trump's communications, such as tweets, because they "fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities." However, the ruling also left room for lower courts to determine if Trump was acting in his official capacity as president or in an unofficial function, such as a candidate for office.
Trump's legal team has argued that the case's foundation rested on a misinterpretation of Trump's actions as Commander in Chief. They criticized the district attorney's office for proceeding with the trial before the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity and accused prosecutors of acting prematurely.
The defense also highlighted the testimony of Hope Hicks, who recounted interactions with Trump in 2018 regarding the alleged hush money payment to Daniels. Trump's lawyers argued that Hicks' testimony was "categorically inadmissible" because she was advising Trump on his official communications, and the Supreme Court's ruling placed limits on the use of testimony from presidential advisors related to official acts.
"This testimony concerned efforts by President Trump to work with Hicks to use the 'long-recognized aspect of Presidential power' known as the 'bully pulpit' to 'persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest,'" the filing stated.
Trump's legal strategy appears to be focused on delaying tactics, with the aim of pushing any potential sentencing beyond the upcoming Republican National Convention and closer to the 2024 presidential election. This move could provide Trump with a strategic advantage as he continues to campaign for a return to the White House.
As the legal battle unfolds, the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity will be closely watched. The decision could have far-reaching consequences for the prosecution of former presidents and the admissibility of evidence related to their official actions. For now, all eyes are on Judge Merchan as he prepares to rule on Trump's motion to dismiss the conviction, a decision that could significantly impact the former president's legal and political future.