Donald Trump’s felony conviction in the New York hush money case should not be overturned because of the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, Judge Juan Merchan ruled on Monday.
Merchan’s decision rejected one of several attempts by Trump’s lawyers to overturn his May guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records. However, since Trump’s election as president, the judge did not rule on his attorneys’ motion to dismiss the conviction.
Instead, his 41-page decision centered on the issue of presidential immunity.
Merchan stated that the Manhattan district attorney’s office’s evidence had nothing to do with Trump’s official conduct as president, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump should have broad immunity for his official acts while in office.
The judge ruled that immunity should not apply to the evidence that Trump’s lawyers contested because it related “entirely to unofficial conduct.”
“This Court concludes that if error occurred regarding the introduction of the challenged evidence, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt,” he wrote.
This Court would still deny the defendant’s motion even if it found that the disputed evidence was official under the Trump decision, which it does not. This is because introducing the disputed evidence was a harmless mistake and there was no error in the way the case was handled.
Merchan’s decision, according to Trump transition spokesman Steven Cheung, “is a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity, as well as other longstanding jurisprudence.”
Trump’s lawyers are likely to appeal Merchan’s decision, which is one of several potential dismissal motions that could keep the case pending for months or even years.
Merchan still needs to rule on Trump’s claim that his presidency acted as a “legal impediment” to further criminal proceedings, leading to the case’s dismissal.
Despite his conviction in May, Trump has yet to receive a sentence. The district attorney’s office has argued in legal filings that the felony conviction should remain valid, despite prosecutors’ agreement that the president-elect will not face a sentence while in office.
While prosecutors could delay or modify the sentence, they argued that dismissing the jury’s conviction outright would be an unjustified “extreme remedy.”
In May, a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records to reimburse his then-lawyer Michael Cohen for a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet about an alleged affair before the 2016 election. Donald Trump has denied the affair.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity twice postponed Trump’s July sentencing, delaying it until after the election.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, according to Trump’s lawyers, should overturn the conviction because the prosecution used evidence from Trump’s official actions in the White House.
Merchan rejected that claim in his decision, stating that the evidence they contested was unrelated to Trump’s official acts as president.
Merchan’s decision detailed several pieces of testimony that Trump’s lawyers claimed should not have been heard at trial due to the immunity decision, including testimony from White House aides Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, as well as Cohen.
According to Merchan, it’s “logical and reasonable to conclude that if the act of falsifying records to cover up the payments so that the public would not be aware is decidedly an unofficial act, then so too should the communications to further that same cover-up be unofficial.”
Merchan stated in a letter to the attorneys on Monday that Trump’s defense team alleged juror misconduct earlier this month, but that the team has yet to file a motion to dismiss the conviction based on the allegations.
The judge wrote that if Trump’s lawyers want him to act on their motion, they must file it properly.
Merchan ordered the attorneys to release details of the alleged issue, with redactions.
“Any allegations of jury misconduct should be thoroughly probed. However, this Court is forbidden from determining such claims based solely on hearsay and supposition,” Merchan wrote.
“This Court does not permit the public filing of unsworn and admittedly challenged statements. To do so would endanger the jurors’ safety and violate the agreed-upon Order Regulating the Disclosure of Juror Information.
