Attorneys for former President Donald Trump filed a post-trial presidential immunity motion on July 11, arguing evidence of official acts were presented before a grand jury and then at trial, and therefore the guilty verdict returned in May must be vacated and the indictment dismissed.
“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.
The Manhattan District Attorney (DANY) had charged former President Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records to the first degree, and the trial began mid-April. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan had rejected a last minute presidential immunity motion from the defense, finding they could raise objections throughout the trial and the judge could then block evidence from being shown to the jury this way.
On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on presidential immunity, which former President Trump had raised in a separate criminal case. The high court found that actions relating to a president’s core constitutional powers are absolutely immune, official acts are presumptively immune, and unofficial acts are conferred no immunity. It then handed the case back to the district court.
Shortly after the ruling, attorneys for former President Trump in the New York case sent a letter to the judge requesting a delay of sentencing in order to argue how presidential immunity would have affected this case had the court allowed briefing on the issue. Prosecutors agreed to a sentencing delay, requesting time to present counterarguments. The judge agreed to the parties’ request and moved the sentencing date to Sept. 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.”
Official Acts
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. Prosecutors must pierce the presumption of immunity before charges can be brought, according to the Supreme Court ruling, and such probing around official acts for the purpose of doing so would not be allowed.
President Trump’s response to a Federal Election Commission inquiry and investigations by Congress, and submission of the Office of Government Ethics, were official acts and should not have been presented to juries as evidence, the defense attorneys argued, nor his official statements via Twitter and elsewhere.
“Here, DANY wrongfully and unconstitutionally forced President Trump to litigate official-acts evidence at trial,” the motion reads.
Defense attorneys argued that the Supreme Court had upheld presidential immunity to preserve the function of the Executive Branch and protect presidents from facing charges based on potentially weak evidence, and that this case fit the bill.
Prosecutors had described Ms. Hicks’s and Ms. Westerhout’s testimonies as “damaging,” “utterly devastating,” and “critical pieces of the puzzle.”
