Former US President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has petitioned the judge overseeing his New York hush money case to dismiss his conviction following a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, according to a court filing.
In a 55-page submission, Trump's legal team argued that the guilty verdict should be annulled because the district attorney's office allegedly relied on evidence during trial that pertained to Trump's official actions as president. They contended that this evidence should not have been permissible under the Supreme Court's recent immunity decision.
"To uphold the doctrine of Presidential immunity and safeguard the associated interests, it is imperative to vacate the jury’s verdicts and dismiss the indictment," Trump's attorneys wrote to Judge Juan Merchan.
They further asserted that the Manhattan district attorney violated the Presidential immunity doctrine and the Supremacy Clause by introducing evidence related to Trump’s official duties from 2017 and 2018. The defense argued that this unfairly prejudiced Trump in what they described as an unprecedented and baseless prosecution concerning alleged business records.
"The unconstitutional evidence concerning official acts predominantly involved actions taken under ‘core’ Executive powers, which warrant ‘absolute’ immunity," Trump’s legal team contended.
Last week, Judge Merchan postponed Trump’s sentencing to allow for the filing of this motion to dismiss the guilty verdict. The district attorney’s office is expected to respond later this month, with Judge Merchan indicating a decision will likely be made in September. A potential sentencing date has been tentatively set for September 18, pending the outcome.
Initially, Trump was slated for sentencing this week following his May conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, marking him as the first former US president convicted of a felony. However, these plans were altered in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which affirmed absolute immunity for core official acts.
Trump’s legal filing highlighted testimony from White House officials, including Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, which they argued should have been excluded from the trial. They cited Hicks’s testimony from 2018, when she served as White House Communications Director, as well as Trump's tweets during his presidency.
"All of Hicks’s testimony regarding events in 2018, conducted in her official capacity, falls under the President’s absolute immunity for core Article II functions," Trump's lawyers asserted.
They also criticized the inclusion of Westerhout’s testimony on national security and her professional relationship with Trump, characterizing the prosecution’s questioning as overly invasive.
"This compelled testimony delved into President Trump’s official responsibilities, work methods, interpersonal relationships, and social media practices at the White House," Trump’s legal team argued.
The filing further pointed to communications intercepted during Trump’s presidency, such as a March 2018 message from Westerhout to Hicks regarding a phone call involving David Pecker. They contended that such disclosures breached Trump's executive privilege and undermined the Presidency.
Moreover, Trump’s attorneys rebuked the district attorney’s office for pursuing the case to trial without waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling.
"In essence, the prosecution’s theory focused on attempts to attribute criminal intent to actions President Trump undertook in 2018 while serving as Commander in Chief overseeing the entire Executive Branch," the defense concluded in their filing.
No comments:
Post a Comment