On Thursday, July 11, 2024, Fox News reported that former President Donald Trump filed a formal motion requesting the judge to overturn his guilty verdict and indictment in a New York criminal case against him.
In the motion, Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche argued that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling establishing immunity for presidents regarding their official acts necessitated the dismissal of Trump’s conviction and charges. Specifically, Blanche pointed to testimony and evidence presented at trial related to Trump’s time as president, such as communications with White House staff and actions as part of his presidential duties.
Blanche claimed this “official-acts evidence” violated the new precedent set by the Supreme Court that presidents cannot be prosecuted for conduct within the scope of their duties in office. The attorney also argued similar evidence of official presidential actions was inappropriately presented to the grand jury, tainting the indictment against Trump.
If the motion is successful, Trump’s guilty verdict for falsifying business records from his trial earlier in 2024 would be overturned. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg brought the charges as part of his investigation into Trump’s business practices.
The trial had resulted in Trump being found guilty on all counts last month. However, his sentencing was postponed to September 18 by Judge Juan Merchan to allow for consideration of the Supreme Court’s recent immunity ruling and any impact on the case.
In the new filing, Blanche asserted the Supreme Court decision does not allow exceptions even if there is seemingly overwhelming evidence or claims of harmless error. The attorney stated even the risk of an impermissible prosecution against a president is unacceptable constitutionally.
Blanche ultimately argued Trump’s guilty verdict and indictment cannot stand legally and must be dismissed due to violations of presidential immunity under the new precedent. The motion seeks to fully overturn the criminal conviction and remove the charges.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 opinion was issued in a separate federal case questioning whether a sitting president could be criminally investigated and established substantial immunity protections for presidential actions taken as part of official duties. While not directly related, Trump’s lawyers believe it nullifies the New York case.
Source: Fox News
