1 week Ago By Associated Press
NEW YORK — A gut punch for most defendants, Donald Trump turned his criminal conviction into a rallying cry. His supporters put “I’m Voting for the Felon” on T-shirts, hats and lawn signs. “The real verdict is going to be Nov.
5 by the people,” Trump proclaimed after his conviction in New York last spring on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Now, just a week after Trump’s resounding election victory, a Manhattan judge is poised to decide whether to uphold the hush money verdict or dismiss it because of a U.S.
Supreme Court decision in July that gave presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution. Judge Juan M. Merchan has said he will issue a written opinion Tuesday on Trump’s request to toss his conviction and either order a new trial or dismiss the indictment entirely.
Merchan had been expected to rule in September, but put it off “to avoid any appearance” he was trying to sway the election. His decision could be on ice again if Trump takes other steps to delay or end the case. If the judge upholds the verdict, the case would be on track for sentencing Nov.
26 — though that could shift or vanish depending on appeals or other legal maneuvers. Trump’s lawyers have been fighting for months to reverse his conviction, which involved efforts to conceal a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to disrupt his 2016 campaign. Trump denies her claim, maintains he did nothing wrong and has decried the verdict as a “rigged, disgraceful” result of a politically motivated “witch hunt” meant to harm his campaign.
The Supreme Court’s ruling gives former presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts — things they do as part of their job as president — and bars prosecutors from using evidence of official acts in trying to prove that purely personal conduct violated the law. Trump was a private citizen — campaigning for president, but neither elected nor sworn in — when his then-lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels in October 2016. But Trump was president when Cohen was reimbursed, and Cohen testified that they discussed the repayment arrangement in the Oval Office.
Those reimbursements, jurors found, were falsely logged in Trump’s records as legal expenses. Trump’s lawyers contend the Manhattan district attorney’s office “tainted” the case with evidence — including testimony about Trump’s first term as president — that shouldn’t have been allowed. Prosecutors maintain that the high court’s ruling provides “no basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict.
” Trump’s conviction, they said, involved unofficial acts — personal conduct for which he is not immune. The Supreme Court didn’t define an official act, leaving that to lower courts. Nor did it make clear how its ruling — which arose from one of Trump’s two federal criminal cases — pertains to state-level cases like Trump’s hush money prosecution.
“There are several murky aspects of the court’s ruling, but one that is particularly relevant to this case is the issue of what counts as an official act,” said George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. “And I think it’s extremely difficult to argue that this payoff to this woman does qualify as an official act, for a number of fairly obvious reasons.”.
