NEW YORK — Attorneys for Donald Trump are pushing for a New York judge to overturn his conviction in a case involving hush money, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling related to presidential immunity. Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, who represent the former U.S. president, alleged in court documents that prosecutors improperly expedited the trial without awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s immunity claims.
Trump, the first former president to be criminally convicted, was found guilty in May of falsifying records in an attempt to conceal a potential sex scandal. He was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, which prosecutors argued stemmed from efforts to obscure a $130,000 payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election.
The Supreme Court’s decision, issued July 1, extended broad immunities to presidents, guarding them against prosecution for actions taken while in office. The ruling also prevents prosecutors from using a president’s official acts as evidence when alleging violations through unofficial actions.
Presidential immunity became a cornerstone of Trump’s defense, although the Supreme Court did not clarify which acts are deemed official, leaving it to lower courts to determine on a case-by-case basis.
Trump’s legal team claimed that various pieces of evidence presented during the trial were improperly admitted, including some of Trump’s conversations with White House officials and his tweets during his presidency. They argue that this affected the fairness of the trial.
The trial, which began on April 15, followed the Supreme Court’s hearings on the immunity issue on April 25. This close timing, Trump’s lawyers suggest, influenced the trial’s outcome as the high court’s views were not considered during court proceedings.
The conviction was the result of a seven-week trial featuring testimonies from 22 witnesses, including Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, and Daniels herself. Despite denying the accusations and refraining from testifying, Trump has publicly disputed the claims made by Daniels regarding an alleged sexual encounter in 2006.
Prosecutors have maintained that the hush money payment was part of a broader scheme to silence potentially damaging allegations during the campaign.
Judge Merchan, overseeing the case, has slated Sept. 6 to decide on the defense’s motions to dismiss the charges and plans to sentence Trump on Sept. 18, should it remain necessary. The defense’s calls to overturn the verdict were swiftly made following the Supreme Capacity’s ruling.
In a related legal maneuver last year, Trump’s team unsuccessfully attempted to move the hush money case from state court to federal court, invoking presidential immunity, but this was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein who determined the allegations were purely personal and unrelated to Trump’s official duties.
While Trump’s conviction marks a historic legal challenge for a former president, it also unfolds against a backdrop of political tension as the Republican Party prepares to formally renominate him at their upcoming convention in Milwaukee.
Overall, the case highlights a complex intersection of law, politics, and presidential privileges, which is likely to influence both legal precedent and public opinion on the scope and limits of presidential immunity. If sentenced to jail, Trump could remain free during an appeal, a situation complicated by the nature of this being a state case, where a potential presidential pardon would be inapplicable.