Trump seeks to overturn his hush money conviction citing recent Supreme Court rulings.


Donald Trump’s legal team has requested that his conviction in the hush money criminal case be overturned and his sentencing, slated for July 11th, be postponed, according to reports from American media. This appeal, detailed in a letter to the New York judge overseeing the trial, invokes a recent Supreme Court ruling that granted Trump immunity from prosecution for official actions taken during his presidency.

May, Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records, all signed during his tenure in the White House in 2017—a factor his lawyers argue should be weighed in his defense. Last year, similar arguments posited that the allegations pertained to official presidential duties. Yet, a federal judge determined Trump failed to substantiate that his actions were directly tied to presidential responsibilities.

Trump lauded Monday’s Supreme Court decision as a “significant victory” for democracy. The ruling emphasized presidential immunity for “official acts” but underscored that presidents are not shielded from liability for “unofficial acts.” This legal context extends to a separate case where Trump faces accusations of attempting to unlawfully overturn the 2020 election outcome that saw Joe Biden ascend to the presidency. President Biden condemned the Supreme Court’s stance, cautioning it could set a troubling precedent undermining the rule of law.

Trump’s lawyers’ letter to Judge Juan Merchan underscores that the Supreme Court’s recent decision supports their argument that certain prosecution evidence in the New York case should be deemed inadmissible, given its connection to Trump’s official presidential actions. The contents of the letter have yet to be publicly disclosed, and Judge Merchan has refrained from commenting on the matter.

A Manhattan jury unanimously convicted Trump on all counts related to falsifying business records. The proceedings featured testimony from several witnesses, including Stormy Daniels, a former adult film star central to the case. Daniels alleged Trump sought to conceal a payment intended to secure her silence during the final stages of his 2016 election campaign. Prosecutors contended that Trump’s approval of this payment, disguised as legal expenses, constituted a breach of election laws.

Following the verdict in the New York case, Trump denounced it as a “disgrace.” The legal maneuvering now pivots on whether recent judicial interpretations of presidential immunity will impact Trump’s legal standing in ongoing and future legal battles.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Enable Google Transliteration.(To type in English, press Ctrl+g)