Attorneys for former President Donald Trump filed a motion on July 11 seeking to vacate his guilty verdict and dismiss the indictment, citing presidential immunity. The motion argues that evidence of official acts was improperly presented before a grand jury and at trial.
The Manhattan District Attorney had charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records, with the trial beginning in mid-April. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan initially rejected a last-minute presidential immunity motion from Trump’s defense, allowing objections to be raised throughout the trial.
On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on presidential immunity in a separate case raised by Trump. The ruling stated that actions related to a president’s core constitutional powers are absolutely immune, official acts are presumptively immune, and unofficial acts are not immune. This decision was sent back to the district court for further consideration.
Following the Supreme Court ruling, Trump’s attorneys requested a delay in sentencing to argue the impact of presidential immunity on the New York case. Prosecutors agreed, and the sentencing was moved to September 18. The defense motion criticizes the Manhattan District Attorney for not considering the Supreme Court’s stance on presidential immunity.
The defense contends that testimony from White House aides about Trump’s official duties should not have been used in the trial, as the Supreme Court ruling forbids such evidence for probing official acts. They argue that official responses to government inquiries and statements should not have been presented as evidence.
Prosecutors have until July 24 to respond to the defense’s motion. The case hinges on whether the court will recognize the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling as grounds to dismiss the indictment and vacate the guilty verdict.
