Judge Faces Challenge of Applying Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Test in Trump’s Hush Money Case

With the sentencing of former President Donald Trump in his New York hush money case delayed until September, Judge Juan Merchan now confronts the task of applying the Supreme Court’s new test for presidential immunity to Trump’s criminal conviction. Trump was found guilty in May on 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records in connection with a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, aimed at bolstering his chances in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump’s legal team has argued that the jury’s verdict should be set aside due to the introduction of evidence protected by presidential immunity, as determined by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling. The defense contends that certain evidence, including Trump’s social media posts, government ethics disclosure, phone records, and testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks, should have been shielded from the trial.

Judge Merchan, who plans to rule on the defense’s request by September 6, must address two crucial questions posed by former federal prosecutor Jarrod Schaeffer. Firstly, he needs to determine if the Supreme Court’s decision would have limited the evidence and testimony presented during the trial. Trump’s lawyers argue that the evidence in question pertains to official acts and should be protected by presidential immunity. However, a federal judge had previously rejected the argument that Trump’s conduct regarding the hush money payment constituted official acts of the presidency.

The second question Merchan must consider is whether the jury relied on the contested evidence and testimony when reaching their guilty verdict. If the judge concludes that the evidence was protected by presidential immunity, he must then assess whether its introduction at trial was harmless or if it resulted in a “structural error” that rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.

The Supreme Court’s ruling not only prohibited prosecution for official acts of a president but also limited the use of evidence related to official acts in cases involving a president’s private actions. The ambiguity surrounding the Court’s decision provides an opportunity for Trump’s lawyers, despite a previous determination by a federal judge that the hush money payment was solely a personal matter for the President.

While some experts argue that the evidence highlighted by Trump in a pretrial motion is unlikely to have influenced the verdict, prosecutors themselves placed significant emphasis on Hope Hicks’ testimony during their closing arguments. If Merchan decides to set aside the verdict, he could order a new trial without the contested evidence related to official acts.