New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan Marchan granted both sides’ requests for time to process the lawsuits. Marchan said he would rule on the motions on September 6.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday in an ideologically-driven decision that a president cannot be prosecuted for acts done in his official capacity but can be tried for his private conduct. The postponement of the ruling is the first of many practical consequences expected to result from the court’s far-reaching decision.
The decision may or may not have a significant impact on Trump’s conviction in New York, because the conduct at issue consisted primarily of making hush money payments to adult film actresses and then It concealed the nature of the reimbursements to Trump’s former lawyers who arranged the payments.But Trump’s legal team is poised to use the new ruling to attack the evidence at trial, because the Supreme Court said evidence related to the president’s official duties cannot be presented to a jury to prove alleged private criminal conduct.
Trump was convicted of concealing payments made before the 2016 presidential election. Evidence of meetings and correspondence that took place during his presidency.
Trump’s lawyers requested a delay on Monday to seek a ruling to overturn the jury’s guilty verdict.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office wrote in a letter to the court on Tuesday that the sentencing must be delayed from July 11 to allow the defense to argue how the Supreme Court’s decision will affect Trump’s prosecution in state court.
In early April, Judge Marchan denied a request by Trump’s lawyers to delay the trial until the Supreme Court’s ruling on immunity, saying the deadline for making such a request had passed. The Supreme Court’s decision stems from a separate criminal case, Trump’s federal election interference trial in Washington, D.C., but could have implications for the former president’s other cases.
Trump’s lawyers, Todd Branche and Emil Bove, have until July 10 to submit written briefs to the judge, with prosecutors due to respond two weeks later.
Prosecutors said they would not oppose a delay, but added that defense arguments about how the Supreme Court decision would affect the New York case were “without merit.”
Gary Galperin, a former prosecutor who recently retired from the Manhattan district attorney’s office after more than 40 years there, said Marchan could have gone ahead with the sentence as scheduled, but that it made sense for prosecutors to agree to it, giving them time to hear arguments about immunity in order to defend the conviction on appeal.
Galperin said Judge Marchan could reject a defense motion, saying Trump’s conduct, even while in office, was unrelated to the presidency or the function of government, and allow Trump’s sentencing to proceed on September 18. The judge could also rely on the fact that the plan to conceal the payments was hatched before Trump took office.
“Many of the things that Trump came up with plans and conspiracies. [DA’s] “The incidents cited in evidence occurred while he was still a candidate, so he was clearly not acting formally as president because this was all in an effort to get himself elected,” Galperin said.
A Manhattan federal judge ruled a year ago that the lawsuit brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his office had no connection to the presidency and rejected a request by Trump’s lawyers to move the case to federal court.
“Mr. Trump has failed to demonstrate that the conduct charged in the indictment was due to or related to acts performed by or on behalf of the President under the guise of his official presidential duties,” U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote on July 19, 2023. “Mr. Trump also has failed to demonstrate that he has a valid federal defense to the indictment.”
Since the case began, Trump’s lawyers have argued that he should be immune from prosecution because much of the alleged conduct occurred while he was in the White House. The bribes to porn actress Stormy Daniels were paid in 2016, weeks before Trump was elected, but the repayments to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, were made in 2017, and those payments produced the reams of evidence prosecutors used to prove their case.
of The reimbursements were misclassified as legal expenses and were not reported on Trump’s campaign expense disclosure forms.
Jurors in the trial were presented with evidence and heard testimony about conduct that occurred while Trump was in office, including incriminating tweets from accounts he used as president.
Trump’s lawyers argued before the trial began that certain evidence the prosecution plans to introduce should be barred by immunity, and Marchant said he would rule on individual immunity claims as they arise during the trial. In a letter, the defense said the prosecution relied heavily on “official acts evidence, including eyewitness testimony about events in the Oval Office.” [the prosecution] It has been described as “devastating.”
“under [the Supreme Court ruling]”This evidence of official conduct should never have been presented before the jury,” Blanche and Bove wrote.
The fight over whether the Supreme Court’s decision applies to the Manhattan district attorney’s case is now a first, and so could set off a flurry of stay requests. If Judge Marchan decides to uphold the conviction, Trump’s team is likely to ask the appeals court for a stay of execution.
The situation has become complicated as the 2024 presidential race heats up after last week’s televised debate between President Trump and President Biden, where both candidates were seen to have serious flaws, but Biden’s frequent appearances of confusion and inability to organize his thoughts drew particular attention.
Trump and his campaign have sought to capitalize on Biden’s decline even as the former president faces four criminal charges and civil judgments totaling more than $550 million on charges including business fraud, defamation and sexual abuse.
If Trump’s conviction survives post-conviction motions, he faces up to four years in prison in the false records case. It is unlikely that Trump will stand trial on his other three criminal counts. Two lawsuits were filed before the November election, two of which concern alleged interference in the 2020 election and one in The matter relates to allegations that the president illegally kept highly classified government records after leaving office.
In President Trump’s federal lawsuit in Washington related to Jan. 6, 2021, that was under consideration by the Supreme Court, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan will have to wait until early August to begin sorting out how the court’s decision will affect the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith and whether the scope of evidence in that case should be narrowed.
In this case, Trump is accused of trying to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election.
Trump and his lawyers have denied all the allegations and say he is being targeted for political reasons.
