Source – latimes.com
In a significant legal move, former President Donald Trump has requested that the judge in his New York hush money case dismiss his conviction. This request is grounded in a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. According to a new court filing, Trump’s lawyers argue that the jury’s guilty verdict should be vacated, as the district attorney’s office relied on evidence related to Trump’s official acts as president. They contend that this evidence should have been excluded in light of the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity.
Trump’s attorneys submitted a 55-page filing to Judge Juan Merchan, asserting that the presidential immunity doctrine must be upheld. “To vindicate the Presidential immunity doctrine and protect the interests implicated by its underpinnings, the jury’s verdicts must be vacated and the Indictment dismissed,” the attorneys wrote. They also claimed that the Manhattan district attorney violated the Presidential immunity doctrine and the Supremacy Clause by using evidence from Donald Trump’s official acts in 2017 and 2018, which they argue unfairly prejudiced the former president.
Delayed Sentencing and Legal Arguments
Judge Merchan has postponed Trump’s sentencing, initially scheduled for last Thursday, to allow time for Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss the guilty verdict to be filed. The district attorney’s office is set to respond later this month, and Merchan will make a decision in September, with a potential sentencing date on September 18 if necessary. Trump was convicted in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records, making him the first former US president to be convicted of a felony. However, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity has introduced new legal complexities.
Trump’s lawyers highlighted specific trial testimonies, including those from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, as inappropriate. They argued that Hicks’s testimony, related to her role as White House Communications Director in 2018, concerned official acts based on core Article II authority for which Trump is entitled to absolute immunity. They also criticized the invasive nature of Westerhout’s compelled testimony about national security matters and her work for Donald Trump, which included details on Trump’s work habits, preferences, and social media practices at the White House.
Implications of the Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court’s ruling, which found that presidents have absolute immunity for core official acts, has significant implications for Trump’s case. His attorneys argue that using Trump’s public statements and actions taken while in office in criminal proceedings would undermine the presidency’s authority and chill a president’s ability to communicate with the public. They criticized the district attorney’s office for not waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision before proceeding with the trial, claiming it was an effort to assign a criminal motive to Trump’s actions as Commander in Chief.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, has responded by asserting that Trump’s argument lacks merit. However, they did not oppose the postponement of the sentencing while the motion is under consideration. Judge Merchan has allowed both sides to file briefs this month, with a ruling expected on September 6. Trump’s sentencing is postponed until September 18, pending the outcome of the motion.
This legal battle underscores the ongoing tensions between state and federal authorities and raises important questions about the extent of presidential immunity and its implications for the judicial process. As the legal proceedings continue, all eyes will be on Judge Merchan’s forthcoming decision and its potential impact on Donald Trump’s conviction and broader legal principles regarding presidential conduct.
