Former President Donald Trump’s legal team is urging Judge Juan M. Merchan to overturn his hush money conviction and dismiss the case, arguing that the trial was tainted by evidence that should not have been allowed due to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity. In a court filing made public on Thursday, Trump’s lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, claimed that Manhattan prosecutors rushed to try Trump without waiting for the Supreme Court’s guidance on his immunity claims.
The defense lawyers emphasized that Judge Merchan has a duty to address the alleged injustices in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. Trump’s legal team is not only seeking to have the jury’s verdict set aside but also to have the indictment dismissed, which would prevent prosecutors from retrying the case. Judge Merchan has stated that he will rule on these requests on September 6 and proceed with sentencing on September 18, if necessary.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office has until July 24 to respond to the defense’s filing and has declined to comment on the matter. The Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling granted broad protections to presidents, shielding them from prosecution for official acts and limiting the use of official acts as evidence in cases involving unofficial actions. However, the Court did not provide a clear definition of what constitutes an official act, leaving it to lower courts to determine.
Trump’s lawyers had previously invoked presidential immunity in an unsuccessful attempt to move the hush money case from state court to federal court. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected this claim, stating that the evidence overwhelmingly suggested the matter was a personal item for the president, unrelated to official duties. The defense also sought to delay the trial until the Supreme Court ruled on the immunity claim, but Judge Merchan deemed the request untimely.
Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying records to cover up a potential sex scandal involving adult film actor Stormy Daniels. The payment made to Daniels, which Trump denies, was part of a broader scheme to silence individuals who could have disclosed embarrassing stories during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, facilitated the payment and was later reimbursed by Trump.
In their filing, Trump’s lawyers argued that certain evidence, such as conversations with Hope Hicks and testimony from another aide, should not have been presented to the jury. They also criticized the use of Trump’s 2018 financial disclosure report, which mentioned the reimbursement to Cohen, as an attempt to assign a criminal motive to Trump’s actions while in office. The defense contended that the Supreme Court’s decision precludes an inquiry into these motives.
1 Response
The post discusses how former President Donald Trump’s legal team is urging Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez to dismiss a lawsuit against Trump and other defendants. The lawsuit accuses Trump of inciting the Capitol riot on January 6th, 2021. Trump’s lawyers argue that the lawsuit lacks legal merit and that Trump’s speech was protected by the First Amendment.
In my opinion, it is important to remember that freedom of speech is a fundamental right in the United States. However, there is a