The judge rules that Trump does not have the protection of presidential immunity when convicted on hush money charges

CNN
—

Judge Juan Merchan ruled Monday that Donald Trump’s felony conviction in the New York hush money case should not be overturned because of the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity.

Merchan’s decision rejected one of several paths taken by Trump’s lawyers to reject Trump’s guilty verdict in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records. However, the judge did not rule on a request from Trump’s lawyers to dismiss the conviction because Trump has now been elected president.

Instead, his 41-page decision focused on the issue of presidential immunity.

Merchan wrote that the Supreme Court’s decision that Trump should receive broad immunity for official acts while in office does not mean that the conviction should be overturned, and ruled that the evidence presented by the Manhattan district attorney’s office was inconsistent with Trump’s official conduct as President were related.

The evidence disputed by Trump’s lawyers, the judge wrote, involved “entirely unofficial conduct” and should not receive immunity protection.

“This court concludes that an error in introducing the challenged evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt,” Merchan wrote. “Even if this court were to find that the disputed evidence constituted official acts within the meaning of the Trump decision, which it does not, defendant’s motion will still be denied because the introduction of the disputed evidence constituted harmless error and There is no procedural error.” .”

Trump transition spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement that Merchan’s decision “represents a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and other longstanding case law.”

Trump’s lawyers are likely to appeal Merchan’s decision, one of several possible motions to dismiss that could drag out the case for months or even years. Merchan has yet to rule on Trump’s argument that his status as president represents a “legal impediment” to further criminal proceedings and that the case should therefore be dismissed.

Trump has not yet been sentenced following his conviction in May. Prosecutors have already agreed that the president-elect will not be convicted while in office, but prosecutors have argued in court filings that the felony conviction should still stand. Prosecutors wrote that while the verdict could be delayed or modified, overturning a jury’s conviction overall would be an unwarranted “extreme remedy.”

Trump was found guilty in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records for making payments to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen to return a $130,000 hush-money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels to stop her from to talk about an alleged affair before the 2016 election. Trump has denied the affair.

Trump’s sentencing was originally scheduled for July, but was postponed twice due to the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, pushing the sentencing date until after the election.

Trump’s lawyers argued that the conviction should be dismissed based on the Supreme Court’s decision because prosecutors relied on evidence from Trump’s official conduct in the White House.

Merchan rejected that claim in its decision, writing that the evidence they disputed was not related to Trump’s actions as president. In his decision, Merchan reviewed several testimonies that Trump’s lawyers claimed should not have been heard at the trial because of the immunity ruling, including those of Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, as well as Cohen, who served in the White House.

Merchan wrote that it was “logical and reasonable to conclude that if falsifying records to conceal payments so that the public would not be informed of them is clearly an unofficial act, then so too would the notices of payment.” “Promoting this cover-up should be unofficial.”

In a letter to lawyers on Monday, Merchan announced that Trump’s defense team had alleged jury misconduct earlier this month, but that Trump’s team had not filed a motion to dismiss the conviction based on the allegations. The judge wrote that Trump’s lawyers would have to file a motion if they wanted him to act accordingly.

Details of the allegations may come to light in the files that Merchan ordered attorneys to disclose with redacted details of the alleged facts.

“Allegations of jury misconduct should be thoroughly investigated. However, this court is prohibited from deciding such claims based on mere hearsay and conjecture,” Merchan wrote. “This court cannot permit the public filing of unsworn and admittedly contested statements. This would jeopardize the safety of jurors and violate the agreed upon regulation governing the disclosure of jury information.”

This story has been updated with additional details.