A major surprise unfolded on Monday as former President Donald Trump’s sentencing was postponed in light of a landmark Supreme Court decision dealing with presidential immunity. The recent ruling noted former presidents enjoy broad protection for official acts, which can’t be used as evidence for unofficial activity in prosecutions.
Following the Supreme Court decision, Trump’s defense team promptly filed a request to delay his sentencing and prepare a motion to argue why his case’s verdict should be overturned. Justice Juan Merchan approved their request and adjourned Trump’s sentencing to September 18.
Despite this unexpected turn of events, legal experts remain skeptical that former President Trump’s the last-minute attempts to overturn his conviction will be successful. His charges, after all, relate to activities before he took office. More specifically, Trump was convicted in May on 34 counts of falsification of business records, related to a cover-up of hush money payments during his 2016 campaign.
“If he engaged in unlawful conduct before he became president, it doesn’t seem to me that his efforts when he was president, to either cover up or address that conduct, will be immunized from criminal liability,” commented Bennett Gershman, a law professor at Pace University and former New York prosecutor.
Trump’s lawyers intend their motion to focus on evidence from his time in office, including social media posts and witness testimonies. Much of this shown at trial pertained to what prosecutors labelled as a 2018 “pressure campaign”, aimed at preventing Michael Cohen, Trump’s ex-attorney and a key witness, from revealing damaging information about Trump.
Legal analyst Rikki Klieman explained that the context and timing of the alleged campaign make it unlikely for Justice Merchan to reverse the conviction. According to Gary Galperin, a law school professor and former Manhattan prosecutor, even if the court finds some evidence shouldn’t have been presented during the trial, the judge can still refrain from setting aside the verdict if enough evidence exists beyond those concerns.
If the verdict is set aside due to the quantity of testimony related to official acts introduced during the trial, a possible retrial could be influenced by Justice Merchan’s findings. Prosecutors would utilize Merchan’s decision to avoid using the offending evidence in future proceedings.
Michael Cohen, the key witness in the case against Trump and his former lawyer, may be requested to testify once again. Considering the possibility of another trial, Cohen stated that he would take the event into advisement and decide when the time comes.
Texas Judge Strikes Down Biden's Overtime Rule In a surprising turn of events, a federal…
Trial Begins in Kiling of Nursing Student Laken Riley In the vibrant city of Athens,…
Lunchables Take a Hit: Weak Demand and Health Concerns Lead to Removal from School Lunch…
City Takes a Stand: Can Ultraprocessed Foods be on the Chopping Block for School Lunches?…
Rock Hill's Semiconductor Facility Plans Scrapped Rock Hill, South Carolina - The city of Rock…
COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina Supreme Court Pauses Executions for Holiday Season The South Carolina…