In a notable turn of events, former President Donald Trump has demanded the overturning of a New York verdict, citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. US. On July 1, Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche filed a motion to postpone the July 11 sentencing in the false business records case. This move follows the Supreme Court’s ruling, which asserts that evidence of official acts cannot be used to prove other crimes, a decision Chief Justice Roberts emphasized in his opinion.
Justice Sotomayor’s dissent highlighted concerns that the ruling could create significant legal chaos, which now appears to be materializing. Trump’s legal team argues that the prosecution improperly introduced evidence of his official acts to demonstrate intent behind the hush money payments made in 2016 to Stormy Daniels via Michael Cohen.
Blanche’s motion specifically pointed to tweets and public statements made by Trump as President, suggesting they were wrongfully used to establish his intent. For instance, a tweet from May 3, 2018, claimed the payments were part of a retainer agreement, an official act they argue should be immune from scrutiny.
Blanche also contested the inclusion of testimony from Hope Hicks and a 2018 disclosure made to the Office of Government Ethics, which also portrayed the payments as a retainer. Trump’s legal team initially filed a similar motion on March 7, 2024, which the court denied as untimely. Justice Juan Merchan, rejecting the motion, noted that Trump’s defense could have been presented much earlier given the procedural history of related cases.
Despite earlier setbacks, Blanche insists that under the new Supreme Court ruling, this evidence should never have been presented to the jury, suggesting it undermines the intended protection against prosecuting a sitting President. The Chief Justice’s opinion suggested that permitting such scrutiny would defeat the immunity’s “intended effect.”
In response, the New York District Attorney’s office has indicated that while they find Trump’s arguments unconvincing, they do not oppose the request to postpone sentencing. They have suggested a new deadline of July 24, 2024, for filing a response to Trump’s motion.
As these legal maneuvers unfold, the full ramifications of the Supreme Court’s ruling continue to ripple through the judicial landscape. Liz Dye covers this story in more detail in her article on Above the Law.