NEW YORK (AP) — A gut punch for most defendants, Donald Trump has turned his criminal conviction into a rallying cry. His supporters have emblazoned T-shirts, hats, and lawn signs with the phrase “I’m Voting for the Felon.”
“The real verdict is going to be Nov. 5 by the people,” Trump proclaimed after his conviction in New York last spring on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Now, just a week after Trump’s resounding election victory, a Manhattan judge is poised to decide whether to uphold the hush money verdict or dismiss it based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in July, which granted presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution. Judge Juan M. Merchan has stated he will issue a written opinion Tuesday on Trump’s request to dismiss his conviction and either order a new trial or completely dismiss the indictment. Although Merchan had been expected to rule in September, he delayed his decision “to avoid any appearance” of influencing the election. His decision could again be delayed if Trump takes further legal steps.
If the judge upholds the verdict, the case would move toward sentencing on Nov. 26, though this could shift or disappear depending on appeals or other legal actions. Trump’s lawyers have been fighting for months to reverse his conviction, which stems from efforts to conceal a $130,000 payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to disrupt his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies the claim, maintains that he did nothing wrong, and has decried the verdict as a “rigged, disgraceful” result of a politically motivated “witch hunt” aimed at harming his campaign.
The Supreme Court ruling grants former presidents immunity for official acts — things they do as part of their presidential duties — and prevents prosecutors from using evidence of official acts to prove that personal conduct violated the law. Trump, however, was a private citizen when his lawyer Michael Cohen made the payment to Daniels in October 2016, although Trump was president when Cohen was reimbursed, and the reimbursement was discussed in the Oval Office. Trump’s lawyers contend that the Manhattan district attorney’s office “tainted” the case with evidence, including testimony about Trump’s presidency, which should not have been allowed. Prosecutors argue that the Supreme Court ruling does not affect the jury’s verdict because the conviction involved unofficial acts, such as personal conduct for which Trump is not immune.
