The Hill reported that the sentencing of former President Trump in the hush money case has been delayed, as his lawyers argue that a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity could nullify key evidence and overturn the conviction.
In May, a New York jury found Donald Trump guilty of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. The payment, made in October 2016, was at the heart of the charges. Following this, Trump's attorneys are leveraging a Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity to overturn the verdict.
The recent Supreme Court ruling grants former presidents presumptive criminal immunity for official acts. This decision has stalled Trump's sentencing as Judge Juan Merchan postponed the sentencing date to September. Judge Merchan stated that sentencing would continue “if such is still necessary.”
Chief Justice John Roberts penned the majority opinion in the ruling. The Supreme Court emphasized that official acts of a president cannot be used as evidence in criminal prosecutions if they relate to the president’s policies or performance. This ruling forms the basis for Trump's legal defense to challenge the admissibility of certain trial evidence.
The evidence under scrutiny includes Trump's social media activity, call records, a government ethics form, and testimonies from individuals such as Hope Hicks. Trump's attorneys, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, argue that this evidence should not have been introduced to the jury.
Judge Merchan has allotted Trump's defense until July 10 to present their full arguments regarding the Supreme Court’s impact on the trial evidence.
Cheryl Bader, a professor of law at Fordham University, highlighted that the Supreme Court has established a significant hurdle for the prosecution. However, she noted that this is not insurmountable and does not necessarily affect Trump's guilty verdict. Bader believes the acts in question fall outside the bounds of presidential duties.
Jeffrey Cohen, a former federal prosecutor, questioned the importance of Hope Hicks' testimony to the prosecution’s case. He mentioned that the impact of this testimony could influence the court's decision on the admissibility of the evidence.
On the other side, Trump's legal team remains firm in their assertion that the so-called "official acts evidence" should never have been considered by the jury in the first place. According to them, this evidence could have unfairly prejudiced the jury against Trump.
Despite the challenge posed by the Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors have contended that the evidence presented was legitimate. They've asserted that Trump's objections are without merit but did not oppose the delay in Trump's sentencing.
Chief Justice Roberts made clear in his ruling that permitting jurors to evaluate a president's official acts risks them being biased against the policies and official duties of the president. At the same time, he conceded that prosecutors could reference the public record to highlight that the president had performed particular acts.
The dominant question remains: How pivotal was Hope Hicks' testimony and other pieces of evidence to Trump’s conviction? As Cheryl Bader underscores, while Trump's alleged act of falsifying business records is seemingly far removed from his official presidential duties, the Supreme Court’s ruling introduces complexities.
Former President Trump’s sentencing for a hush money case has been postponed following the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity. Trump’s defense is leveraging the ruling to argue that key evidence should be excluded, which could nullify the trial's outcome. Legal experts and prosecutors differ significantly on the ruling’s potential impact, while the court’s reevaluation of evidence continues to loom large over the proceedings.
