On Thursday evening, former President Trump formally requested that Judge Merchan overturn his guilty verdict in the case of New York v. Trump. This request follows a Supreme Court ruling that presidents have immunity for official acts.
Trump was found guilty in an unprecedented criminal trial last month on all counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, following a six-week trial stemming from Bragg’s investigation.
The formal motion was filed Thursday evening.
“The Court should dismiss the indictment and vacate the jury’s verdicts based on violations of the Presidential immunity doctrine and the Supremacy Clause,” Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche wrote in the motion.
Last week, Trump indicated that he would seek to overturn his criminal conviction in the Manhattan case. This move comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a former president has significant immunity for official acts committed while in office.
In the formal motion on Thursday evening, Blanche cited the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling and argued that certain evidence related to “official acts” should not have been allowed during the trial.
Specifically, Blanche contended that testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and former Special Assistant to the President Madeleine Westerhout, along with testimony about the Special Counsel’s Office, Congressional Investigations, the pardon power, President Trump’s response to FEC inquiries, his presidential Twitter posts, and other related testimony, should not have been allowed during the trial.
Trump attorneys also pointed to Trump’s disclosures to the Office of Government Ethics as president.
Blanche said that “official-acts evidence” that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg presented to the grand jury “contravened the holding in Trump because Presidents ‘cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution,’” the motion reads.
“The Presidential immunity doctrine recognized in Trump pertains to all ‘criminal proceedings,’ including grand jury proceedings when a prosecutor ‘seeks to charge’ a former President using evidence of official acts.”
Blanche claimed that Bragg “violated the Presidential immunity doctrine by using similar official-acts evidence in the grand jury proceedings that gave rise to the politically motivated charges in this case.”
“Because an Indictment so tainted cannot stand, the charges must be dismissed,” Blanche argued.
Blanche also clarified that, according to the Supreme Court’s decision, there can be no “overwhelming evidence” or “harmless error” exception to “the profound institutional interests at stake.”
“Indeed, Trump contemplates a pretrial interlocutory appeal of an adverse Presidential immunity determination precisely because even the prospect of such a trial is constitutionally unacceptable,” Blanche wrote.
“It necessarily follows that the results of a trial conducted in breach of these holdings is invalid.”
Trump was scheduled to be sentenced on Thursday, just days before the Republican National Convention, where he is expected to be formally nominated as the 2024 GOP presidential candidate.
However, last week, Merchan granted Trump’s request to postpone the sentencing. Merchan rescheduled the sentencing hearing to September 18, “if such is still necessary.”
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling on presidential immunity arose from a query originating from charges filed against Trump in a distinct federal case led by special counsel Jack Smith. This case pertains to the events surrounding the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach and any purported attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in that case.
Share your thoughts by scrolling down to leave a comment.
