Trump's attempt to dismiss hush money case citing presidential immunity fails
He currently has another pending motion requesting the judge to dismiss the case due to his electoral victory.
TroibNews 
NEW YORK — Donald Trump faced a setback in his attempts to overturn his criminal conviction in the Manhattan hush money case on Monday, as a judge determined that the Supreme Court's significant ruling on presidential immunity does not pertain to the evidence presented in the case.
Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over the hush money trial in May, dismissed Trump's argument that Manhattan prosecutors had inappropriately presented evidence related to his actions during his first term as president.
In his 41-page ruling, Merchan clarified that the evidence in question pertained to Trump's personal conduct, specifically his attempts to hide a hush money payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels. Since the evidence was exclusively tied to unofficial actions, it was not subject to the immunity principles outlined by the Supreme Court in its July ruling concerning a different case involving Trump.
The Supreme Court's July decision — rendered more than a month after a New York jury convicted Trump in the hush money case — stated that prosecutors generally cannot charge former presidents with crimes related to their official actions, nor can they present evidence of such actions.
This immunity ruling played a role in undermining the federal case regarding Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump attempted to leverage this decision to challenge his hush money conviction, where he was found guilty of 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records.
While Merchan rejected that request on Monday, Trump has another motion pending that asks the judge to vacate the conviction and dismiss the case, citing his electoral victory in 2024. In this motion, Trump argued that continuing with the case and proceeding to sentencing would impede his presidential duties.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over the hush money trial in May, dismissed Trump's argument that Manhattan prosecutors had inappropriately presented evidence related to his actions during his first term as president.
In his 41-page ruling, Merchan clarified that the evidence in question pertained to Trump's personal conduct, specifically his attempts to hide a hush money payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels. Since the evidence was exclusively tied to unofficial actions, it was not subject to the immunity principles outlined by the Supreme Court in its July ruling concerning a different case involving Trump.
The Supreme Court's July decision — rendered more than a month after a New York jury convicted Trump in the hush money case — stated that prosecutors generally cannot charge former presidents with crimes related to their official actions, nor can they present evidence of such actions.
This immunity ruling played a role in undermining the federal case regarding Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump attempted to leverage this decision to challenge his hush money conviction, where he was found guilty of 34 felony counts related to falsifying business records.
While Merchan rejected that request on Monday, Trump has another motion pending that asks the judge to vacate the conviction and dismiss the case, citing his electoral victory in 2024. In this motion, Trump argued that continuing with the case and proceeding to sentencing would impede his presidential duties.
James del Carmen for TROIB News
