A judge on Monday declined to overturn US President-elect Donald Trump’s hush money conviction, which was thrown out because of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity. However, the overall future of the case remains unclear.
The decision by Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan eliminates a possible exit from the case before the former and future president’s return to office next month. However, Trump’s lawyers have put forward other arguments for the dismissal. It is unclear when — or if — a sentencing date might be set.
Prosecutors have said there should be some provision for his upcoming presidency but insist the sentence will stand.
A jury condemned Trump in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a $130,000 hush-money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in 2016. Trump denies wrongdoing.
The allegations centered on a plan to hide the payout to Daniels in the final days of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign to keep her from publicly disclosing – and voters from – her allegation of a sexual encounter with the then-married businessman years ago to stop hearing about it. He says nothing sexual happened between them.
Supreme Court ruling after verdict
weeks after the verdict The Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions – things they did while leading the country – and that prosecutors cannot cite those actions to support a case involving purely personal, unofficial conduct .
Trump’s lawyers then cited the Supreme Court’s opinion, arguing that the hush-money jury received inadmissible evidence, such as Trump’s presidential financial disclosure form, statements from some White House aides and social media posts he made while in office have.
In Monday’s decision, Merchan rejected most of Trump’s claims that some of the prosecution’s evidence related to official acts and included immunity protections.
The judge said that even if he were to find evidence relating to official conduct, he would still find that the prosecution’s decision to “use these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records does not create a danger of one.” Interference with the authority.” Function of the executive branch.
Even if prosecutors had mistakenly presented evidence that could be challenged as part of an immunity claim, “such an error was harmless in the face of the overwhelming evidence of guilt,” Merchan continued.
Prosecutors had said the evidence in question was only a “fraction” of their case.
Steven Cheung, Trump’s communications director, called Merchan’s decision on Monday a “direct violation of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling and other longstanding case law.”
“This unlawful case should never have been brought, and the Constitution requires that it be dismissed immediately,” Cheung said in a statement.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which prosecuted the case, declined to comment.
Merchan’s decision noted that part of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling stated that “not everything the president does is official.” Trump’s social media posts, for example, were personal, Merchan wrote.
Former US President Donald Trump has been found guilty in his hush money trial in New York. CBC’s Anya Zoledziowski breaks down the key evidence and witnesses that led the jury to the historic conviction.
He also pointed to an earlier federal court ruling that concluded the hush-money payment and subsequent refunds concerned Trump’s personal life and not his official duties.
The 78-year-old Trump takes office on January 20th. He is the first former president to be convicted of a crime and the first convicted criminal elected to that office.
Pushed for conviction, lawsuit dismissed
Over the past six months, Trump’s lawyers have made numerous efforts to secure the conviction and dismissal of the entire case. After Trump won the election last month, Merchan indefinitely postponed his scheduled late November sentencing so defense attorneys and prosecutors could suggest next steps.
Trump’s defense argued that anything other than an immediate dismissal would undermine the transfer of power and lead to unconstitutional “disruptions” in the presidency.
Meanwhile, prosecutors suggested several options to preserve the historic conviction. The proposals include: freezing the process until Trump leaves office in 2029; Agree that future sentences will not include prison time; or close the case with a finding that although he was convicted, he was not convicted and his appeal was not decided because he took office.
The final idea is based on the approach some states take when a defendant dies after conviction but before sentencing.
Trump’s lawyers called the concept “absurd” and also questioned the other proposals.
