New York prosecutors have requested a stay until at least 2029 in the case of New York v. Trump, as the president’s defense attorneys prepare to move to dismiss the case entirely. The prosecutors wrote a letter to Judge Juan Merchan, who agreed to grant a stay on all deadlines associated with the conviction proceedings against Trump in the final months before he takes office. Merchan granted the request, issuing a stay on all deadlines, including the Nov. 26 sentencing date, to consider the impact of Trump’s election as president. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg wrote to Merchan on Tuesday, stating the need to balance constitutional interests and mentioning the possibility of deferring criminal proceedings until after Trump’s term ends in 2029. Trump’s legal team is seeking a dismissal, and the Manhattan DA has conceded to staying the case until further proceedings are determined.
Trump’s attorneys, who had filed a motion to vacate the charges completely, also backed the stay. Trump pleaded not guilty to all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree but was found guilty in May after a six-week-long criminal trial in New York. His attorneys have requested that Judge Merchan overturn the guilty verdict, citing the United States Supreme Court’s decision that former presidents have substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts in office. They argue that certain evidence presented during the trial should not have been admitted, as they were considered “official acts.” Specifically, testimony from White House officials and evidence related to Trump’s presidential actions were cited as evidence that should not have been allowed. Trump’s legal team is pushing for a dismissal of the case based on the presidential immunity doctrine recognized by the Supreme Court.
Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, argued that the evidence presented by the Manhattan District Attorney during grand jury proceedings violated the presidential immunity doctrine, making the charges against Trump invalid. He emphasized that the charges should be dismissed because evidence of official acts was improperly introduced during the trial. The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity does not allow for exceptions based on overwhelming evidence or harmless errors, according to Blanche. The ruling stemmed from a separate federal case brought by special counsel Jack Smith related to events on Jan. 6, 2021, and efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump pleaded not guilty in that case as well, and Smith is winding down his cases against Trump following his election as the 47th President of the United States.
The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity has had significant implications for Trump’s legal battles, as his defense team seeks to have his conviction overturned in the New York case. Trump’s attorneys are arguing that evidence presented during the trial regarding his official actions as president should not have been admitted, given the immunity from prosecution for official acts granted to former presidents. They are pushing for the dismissal of the charges, citing violations of the presidential immunity doctrine by the Manhattan District Attorney. The case has been put on hold with a stay granted by Judge Merchan while further proceedings are considered. Trump’s team views this development as a victory and a step towards getting the case dismissed entirely.
As the legal battle in New York continues, Trump’s defense team is utilizing the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity to challenge the charges against him. The implications of this case could have far-reaching effects on how former presidents are prosecuted for actions taken while in office. The stay granted in the case indicates a pause in proceedings as both sides prepare for the next steps in determining the fate of the charges against Trump. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future cases involving former presidents and their official actions while in office.
