Trump loses bid to dismiss hush-money conviction on immunity grounds

Trump was convicted in May in case stemming from payment his former lawyer Michael Cohen made to Stormy Daniels

Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, and Donald Trump. Photograph: Brendan Mcdermid/Reuters
Stephanie Clifford, also known as Stormy Daniels, and Donald Trump. Photograph: Brendan Mcdermid/Reuters

Donald Trump on Monday lost a bid to overturn his criminal conviction stemming from hush money paid to a porn star in light of the US Supreme Court’s July ruling recognising immunity from prosecution for a president’s official acts.

Justice Juan Merchan’s denial of Mr Trump’s motion to dismiss the New York state case forecloses one avenue for the Republican president-elect to enter the White House on January 20th for his second four-year term without the stain of a criminal conviction.

Mr Trump’s lawyers are separately trying to have the verdict overturned on separate grounds in the wake of his defeat of Democratic vice-president Kamala Harris in the November 5th election. Judge Merchan has not yet ruled on that motion.

In Monday’s 41-page decision, the judge sided with Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which brought the case. The prosecutors argued their case dealt with Mr Trump’s personal conduct, not his official acts as president.

READ MORE

The judge said Mr Trump’s prosecution for “decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the executive branch”.

In a statement, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung called the judge’s decision “a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity”.

The case stemmed from a $130,000 (€123,800) payment that Mr Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen made to adult film actor Stormy Daniels. The payment was for her silence before the 2016 election about a sexual encounter she has said she had a decade earlier with Mr Trump, who denies it.

A Manhattan jury in May found Mr Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up the payment. It was the first time a US president – former or sitting – had been convicted of or charged with a criminal offence.

Mr Trump pleaded not guilty and called the case an attempt by Mr Bragg, a Democrat, to harm his 2024 campaign.

The hush-money case was the only one of four sets of criminal charges brought against Mr Trump in 2023 to reach trial.

Federal cases over his efforts to change the result of the 2020 election and his handling of classified documents upon leaving office have been dismissed, per US Department of Justice policy holding that presidents cannot be federally prosecuted.

Another criminal case against Mr Trump over the 2020 election in Georgia state court is in limbo. He pleaded not guilty in all cases.

The Supreme Court, in a decision arising from one of the two federal cases against Mr Trump, decided that presidents are immune from prosecution involving their official acts, and that juries cannot be presented evidence of official acts in trials over personal conduct. It marked the first time that the court recognised any degree of presidential immunity from prosecution.

Mr Trump’s lawyers said the New York jury that convicted him was shown evidence by prosecutors of his social media posts as president and heard testimony from his former aides about conversations that occurred in the White House during his 2017-2021 term.

Prosecutors with Mr Bragg’s office countered that the Supreme Court’s ruling has no bearing on the case, which they said concerned “wholly unofficial conduct.”

The Supreme Court in its ruling found no immunity for a president’s unofficial acts.

Mr Trump was initially scheduled to be sentenced on November 26th, but judge Merchan pushed that back indefinitely after his election win.

Mr Trump’s lawyers earlier this month filed a separate motion urging the judge to dismiss the charges because having them loom over Mr Trump while he was serving as president would impede his ability to govern.

Mr Bragg’s office said there were measures short of the “extreme remedy” of overturning the jury’s verdict that could assuage Mr Trump’s concerns.

It is not clear when the judge will rule. – Reuters