Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has argued in a new court filing that former President Trump's criminal case and guilty verdict are not affected by the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity.
"That decision has no bearing on this prosecution and would not support vacatur of the jury’s unanimous verdict (let alone dismissal of the indictment) even if its reasoning did apply here," reads a July 24 brief from Bragg's team.
Earlier this month the Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for core constitutional conduct, presumptive immunity for official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts - which Bragg has seized on in his response to a Trump filing asking New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan to toss Trump's indictment, arguing that communications between Trump and his aides have been used as evidence before the grand jury which indicted Trump and a jury which returned a guilty verdict.
According to Bragg's team, all of the criminal charges in Trump's 'hush money' case "stem from the defendant's 'unofficial acts' - conduct for which 'there is no immunity.'"
As the Epoch Times notes further, the affected evidence is only a “sliver” if the “mountains of testimony and documentary proof that the jury considered,” therefore not warranting dismissal.
Timing of Objections
Prosecutors had relied on testimony of White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and Oval Office Director of Operations Madeleine Westerhout to establish that President Trump had signed Trump Organization checks at the White House.
Defense attorneys had raised presidential immunity objections to Ms. Hicks’s testimony, and Justice Merchan had overruled the objections. The defense had also objected during Ms. Westerhout’s testimony, but not specifically citing presidential immunity.
Prosecutors had also shown several social media posts made by President Trump during his time in office, some directly addressing allegations after his former attorney Michael Cohen was charged for financial crimes.
Defense attorneys had objected to the admission of these quotes, but not on the basis of presidential immunity.
Prosecutors argue defendants failed to preserve a record of objections based on immunity for official acts, and this “precludes this Court from considering any claim to vacate his conviction.”
Prior to the trial, attorneys for President Trump did file a presidential immunity motion. Justice Merchan had dismissed the motion, ruling that defense attorneys could make individual objections against the admission of specific evidence during the trial and that he did not believe the motion was filed in good faith. The judge had faulted defendants for not raising presidential immunity earlier, including during an attempt to remove the case to federal court.
Prosecutors now argue that the defense “waived reliance on presidential immunity as a defense” when they tried to remove the case to federal court. They cited a separate, civil case against former President Trump in which a federal judge had ruled that presidential immunity was a waivable defense. However, the U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion held presidential immunity to be necessary to the core principle of separation of powers.
Charges
Former President Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, and prosecutors argued that even excluding the contested evidence, the grand jury evidence establishes these charges.
The 34 records are 11 checks to Mr. Cohen and their corresponding invoices and vouchers, including one repeated record after the initial one was lost. Prosecutors argue that the grand jury record establishes that these are business records, that they contain false entries, that former President Trump caused or made the entries, and that he “acted with intent to defraud.”
“Even excluding all of the evidence defendant belatedly identifies as immune, the grand jury record is easily sufficient to support the indictment,” the brief reads.
Justice Merchan has scheduled former President Trump’s sentencing in the case to Sept. 18. The judge is expected to issue a ruling on the presidential immunity arguments by then.
