Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg argues that former President Trump’s criminal case and guilty verdict are not affected by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity. In a July 24 brief, Bragg’s team states that “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.
The Supreme Court had 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. Bragg has seized on this distinction to argue that Trump’s “hush money” case, which involves criminal charges stemming from his “unofficial acts,” does not qualify for presidential immunity.
According to Bragg’s team, the evidence in question is only a small portion of the testimony and documentary proof presented during the trial, and therefore not significant enough to warrant dismissal of the case. Prosecutors had relied on the testimony of White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and Oval Office Director of Operations Madeleine Westerhout, as well as several social media posts made by President Trump during his time in office.
Defense attorneys had raised presidential immunity objections to some of this evidence, but Justice Merchan overruled these objections. 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.
Former President Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Prosecutors argue that even excluding the contested evidence, the grand jury evidence establishes these charges and that the defendant “acted with intent to defraud.” Justice Merchan has scheduled former President Trump’s sentencing for September 18, and is expected to issue a ruling on the presidential immunity arguments by then.
