The aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity will intensify next month, as judges in two of former President Trump's four criminal cases address its implications.
On September 5, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan will consider how to move forward with Trump's federal indictment, which accuses him of conspiring to undermine the 2020 election. Less than two weeks later, New York Supreme Court Acting Justice Juan Merchan will decide whether to overturn Trump's conviction in his hush money case, a verdict that could be his only criminal conviction before the election.
Both cases will explore the limits of Trump's recent legal victory when the Supreme Court granted former presidents presumptive immunity for their official actions. The 6-3 decision leaves it to Trump's trial judges to apply this immunity to his specific cases, which could dominate his legal battles leading up to the election.
Immediately following the Supreme Court's decision, Trump's attorneys began efforts to overturn his guilty verdict in New York, where he was convicted of falsifying business records related to hush money payments during his 2016 campaign. Although Trump has never claimed his 34 charges were official acts, he argues that prosecutors improperly used immunized conduct as evidence during the trial. This evidence includes testimony from two White House aides, Trump's government ethics form, and some of his tweets sent while in office.
The argument hinges on the Supreme Court's ruling that protected acts cannot be used as evidence, even if the charges involve unofficial conduct. However, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the majority, did not agree with this portion of the ruling.
Merchan has indicated he will decide by September 16 whether the verdict can stand, just two days before sentencing. Trump’s lawyers have requested a postponement until after the November election, suggesting that Trump will appeal the immunity claim if the verdict is upheld. The sentencing date might change if Merchan’s decision raises further questions or alters the sentencing process.
Trump's attorneys also noted the Supreme Court's criticism of the rapid pace of Trump's federal election subversion prosecution, led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has since slowed down. Smith’s office recently requested more time to assess the new precedent, reflecting a significant shift from his earlier urgency.
Chutkan, the judge in the federal case, extended the deadline until August 30 for both sides to present their proposals. She will hold a hearing on September 5 to discuss the next steps, which could include an evidentiary hearing to apply the Supreme Court's immunity test.
On the same day as Chutkan's hearing, the immunity decision will also impact a courtroom in Arizona, where Mark Meadows, Trump's former White House chief of staff, is seeking to move his criminal charges from state to federal court. Meadows’ appeal in Georgia is pending at the Supreme Court, and the process is just beginning in Arizona.
Trump faces two other criminal cases beyond his hush money and federal election subversion charges, but appeals in those cases are expected to delay them until well after the November election. In Florida, Trump's district judge dismissed charges related to his handling of documents, a decision that Smith is appealing, though a resolution is not expected for months. In Georgia, Trump is appealing claims of a conflict of interest involving Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, with oral arguments scheduled for December.
If Trump is not elected president, these
appeals will continue. However, even if prosecutors succeed, they will still
have to contend with Trump's immunity defense, which has been strengthened by
the Supreme Court's recent decision.
This site uses Google AdSense ad intent links. AdSense automatically generates these links and they may help creators earn money.
.jpg)
0 Comments