Attorneys for former President Donald Trump filed a motion Thursday to vacate the guilty verdict returned in May and dismiss the indictment, arguing presidential immunity, claiming that evidence of official acts was improperly presented both before the grand jury and at trial, thus necessitating the invalidation of the verdict. “Your Honor now has the authority to address these injustices, and the Court is duty-bound to do so in light of the Supreme Court’s decision,” the motion reads, according to The Epoch Times.
The Manhattan District Attorney (DANY) charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, with the trial commencing in mid-April. During the proceedings, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan denied a last-minute motion for presidential immunity from Trump’s defense team. The judge ruled that while the defense could raise objections during the trial, he would address and potentially block specific pieces of evidence from being presented to the jury at that time.
On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on presidential immunity, addressing a separate criminal case involving Trump. The Court determined that actions related to a president’s core constitutional powers are absolutely immune, official acts are presumptively immune, and unofficial acts are not granted any immunity. The case was then remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Trump’s attorneys in the New York case requested a delay in sentencing to argue how presidential immunity might have impacted the case if the court had permitted briefing on the issue. Prosecutors consented to the delay, seeking additional time to present counterarguments. The judge accepted the request from both parties and rescheduled the sentencing date to September 18 “if such is still necessary.”
“DANY urged this Court to front-run the Supreme Court on a federal constitutional issue with grave implications for the operation of the federal government and the relationships between state and federal officials,” the defense motion reads. “The record is clear: DANY was wrong, very wrong.”
The outlet noted further:
During the trial, prosecutors elicited testimony from White House aides about work inside the Oval Office, observations about the president’s work, and official statements. Similar evidence had been presented to a grand jury, which returned the indictment.This included testimony from White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, who testified before the grand jury and at trial about communications with the president, and her observations of him and his work. Similar testimony was offered by Director of Oval Office Operations Madeleine Westerhout.
The Supreme Court ruling “specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ’testimony‘ from a President’s ’advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act,’” defense attorneys argue. According to the Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors must overcome the presumption of immunity before bringing charges. It is not permitted to probe official acts in pursuit of this.
Trump’s defense attorneys argued that his responses to a Federal Election Commission inquiry, investigations by Congress, and submissions to the Office of Government Ethics were official acts and should not have been presented as evidence to the jury. They also contended that his official statements made via Twitter and other platforms should not have been included in the trial. “Here, DANY wrongfully and unconstitutionally forced President Trump to litigate official-acts evidence at trial,” the motion said.
“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. Blanche argued 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.”
He further argued 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.” He added: “Because an Indictment so tainted cannot stand, the charges must be dismissed.”
Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.