The defense is arguing that prejudicial statements related to the former president’s official acts in office were presented by the district attorney at trial.
The parties had requested permission to argue over the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling on presidential immunity, and the judge granted the requests. The defense has a July 10 deadline to file a motion and prosecutors have a July 24 deadline to file a response. The judge also granted a separate request by prosecutors to submit a recommendation for sentencing.
“The verdicts in this case violate the presidential immunity doctrine and create grave risks of ‘an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself,’” defense attorneys wrote in a July 1 letter to the judge, seeking permission to file a motion to throw out the verdict by July 10, one day before the scheduled sentencing hearing.
Argument Over Official Acts
In March, defense attorneys moved to limit the scope of evidence in the New York case to exclude the president’s official acts. Justice Merchan had denied the motion as “untimely,” doubting the defense’s good faith basis. The judge found that the defense could have filed the motion when it sought to remove the case to federal court, by the deadline for motions to limit evidence used at trial, or when it sought to dismiss the former president’s federal criminal case in the District of Columbia based on presidential immunity.
Defense attorneys said the judge ruled incorrectly and that the deadlines he spoke of did not apply to motions to preclude evidence. The judge responded that he could rule on objections based on presidential immunity during the trial.
Now, the defense is arguing that despite the objections, prejudicial statements and evidence were presented by the district attorney at trial.
Prosecutors described an event in the Oval Office as “devastating” and introduced statements by the president and witness testimony about working for the president in the White House, the defense argued.
“This official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury,” defense attorneys argued.
The Supreme Court held that a president “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” Prosecutors would have to rebut the presumptive immunity for official acts before he could be charged for them.
