Trump Demands NY Verdict Be Overturned Because IMMUNITY
Luckily, yesterday's motion was a model of clarity, so this should be resolved in a jiffy. LOL.
(Photo by Yuki Iwamura-Pool/Getty Images)
SCOTUS’s immunity ruling is already unleashing the chaos warned of in Justice Sotomayor’s blistering dissent. Within hours, Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche moved to postpone the July 11 sentencing in the New York false business records case pending a motion to set aside the verdict based on Trump v. US.
Perhaps the most gonzo bit of the opinion is the bar on using official acts as evidence of other crimes.
A Law Firm Checklist For Successful Transaction Management
“If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated,” the Chief Justice wrote, hyperventilating that the fear of prosecution might deter future presidents from “boldly” committing crimes. And testimony from his aides is presumptively off limits, as well, lest the president be forced to exercise caution when asking his advisors to join him in criming.
And so it was inevitable that Blanche would argue that the prosecution wrongly introduced evidence of “official acts” as evidence of Trump’s intent to cover up the hush money payment in 2016 to Stormy Daniels through a series of sham payments to Michael Cohen. Those official acts included tweets claiming the payments were a “retainer,” as well as public statements about Daniels made on Air Force One.
Blanche also took exception to testimony by Hope Hicks, along with the introduction of a 2018 disclosure to the Office of Government Ethics in which Trump again characterized the payments as a retainer.
Sponsored
How To Build And Manage Your Law Firm Rate Sheet
Not All Legal AI Is Created Equal
Trust The Process: How To Build And Manage Workflows In Law Firms
Trust The Process: How To Build And Manage Workflows In Law Firms
Trump made this argument on March 7, just 18 days before the trial was originally scheduled to begin on March 25. The motion was rejected as untimely, with Justice Juan Merchan noting that “The procedural history of the instant matter, together with the procedural history of the Federal Insurrection Matter, leave no doubt that Defendant was aware that the defense, even if unsuccessful, was available to him well before March 7, 2024, when this motion was filed.” That was a reference to Trump’s immunity motion in DC, which was filed in October of 2023 and eventually led to yesterday’s debacle.
Nevertheless, Blanche insists that “Under Trump, this official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury,” and risks manifesting the “Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself” warned of by the Chief Justice. How the District Attorney of New York is part of a cannibalistic executive branch is left as an exercise for the reader.
In response, the DA notes that Blanche, in his zeal to expose the DA as a modern day Hannibal Lecter, failed to ask for an adjournment of the July 11 sentencing.
“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” they added. “We respectfully request a deadline of July 24, 2024—two weeks after defendant’s requested deadline—to file and serve a response. ”
Chaos chaos chaos! Thanks, Mr. Chief Justice!
Sponsored
How Savvy Lawyers Build Their Law Firm Rate Sheet
A Law Firm Checklist For Successful Transaction Management
Liz Dye lives in Baltimore where she produces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.
