President Trump has petitioned a state court judge to overturn his criminal conviction in New York, citing the recent Supreme Court immunity decision that delineates the conditions under which a former president should be protected from prosecution.
Originally scheduled for this Thursday, sentencing was postponed by Merchan to allow more time for both parties to present legal briefs on the immunity issue. The prosecution is expected to respond by July 24, with sentencing now set for September 18, “if such is still necessary”.
Trump’s legal team, headed by Todd Blanche, argues that several instances of “impermissible official-acts evidence” were wrongly admitted in the trial, which, according to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, should not be allowed if they pertain to core presidential duties. They contend that private discussions between Trump and former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, conversations about his pardon power, and his Twitter posts were all improperly included as evidence in the Manhattan case, necessitating a new trial.
Previously, Trump’s attorneys had claimed he was immune from prosecution in New York, a stance Judge Merchan rejected. Now, they insist that Merchan must adhere to the Supreme Court’s decision, issued more than a month after Trump’s conviction by a Manhattan jury.
Trump’s defense focuses on a part of the Supreme Court’s ruling that suggests “presumptive” immunity from criminal prosecution for other actions unless the government can successfully challenge that presumption. The 52-page motion also argues that the case was politically motivated from the start and that Trump was treated unjustly, echoing Trump’s criticisms of District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat.
Blanche contends that prosecutors, instead of awaiting the Supreme Court’s guidance on immunity, rushed to trial with overconfidence, despite no court having previously addressed a president’s immunity from prosecution. He argues that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer, and that the testimonies of Hicks and others were improperly used to strengthen the case, a practice now deemed unacceptable by the Supreme Court.
