Donald Trump’s legal team has formally asked a judge to dismiss his hush money conviction and the indictment that led to his trial. Citing last week’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, Trump’s lawyers argue that some evidence used by prosecutors should not have been permitted.
The Supreme Court ruled that presidents have immunity for official acts but not private conduct. This decision, while stemming from Trump’s federal indictment in D.C., has significant implications for his criminal trials. The ruling prohibits using evidence related to official acts against a former president in court, leaving those specifics to trial judges.
In a motion made public on Thursday, Trump’s lawyers cited testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks and Trump’s Twitter posts during his presidency as official presidential acts that should have been excluded from the grand jury process and trial.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan postponed Trump’s sentencing to allow time for arguments over the admissibility of the evidence. Trump’s attorneys argued that prosecutors relied heavily on “official act” evidence, beginning with the grand jury indictment in March 2023. They assert that the inclusion of such evidence was unjust.
If the guilty verdict stands, Trump faces up to four years in state prison, though actual incarceration would be unusual given his lack of a prior criminal record and the logistics involved with jailing a former president.
The trial centered on a $130,000 payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election in exchange for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter. Trump denies the encounter, claiming the payment was to avoid a scandal.
Prosecutors argue that the Supreme Court ruling should not impact the trial, as the falsification of records stemmed from an agreement made before Trump’s presidency. Their response to Trump’s motion is due by September 24.
This legal battle underscores the complexities of prosecuting a former president and the unprecedented nature of such high-stakes cases.
Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story.