NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump, a gut punch to most defendants, has changed his mind criminal conviction It became a rallying cry. His supporters wrote “I Vote Guilty” on T-shirts, hats and lawn signs.

“The real decision will be made by the people on November 5th,” Trump said after his conviction last spring in New York on 34 charges of falsifying business records.

More Local News

Now, just a week after Trump’s resounding election victory, a judge in Manhattan is preparing to decide whether to uphold the hush money ruling. reject because of something US Supreme Court decision In July, this gave presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

Judge Juan M. Merchan said he would issue a written opinion Tuesday on Trump’s request to vacate the conviction and hold a new trial or dismiss the indictment altogether.

Merchan was expected to come to power in September but was trying to influence the election “to avoid being seen”. His decision could still be overturned if Trump takes further steps to delay or end the case.

If the judge approves the verdict, the case will move forward to sentencing on November 26; but this may change or disappear depending on appeals or other legal maneuvers.

Trump’s lawyers have been fighting for months to overturn the conviction, which includes efforts to conceal a $130,000 payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to disrupt Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Trump denies her allegation, maintains he did nothing wrong and calls the decision a “fraudulent, shameful” result of a politically motivated “witch hunt” aimed at damaging his campaign.

The Supreme Court’s decision gives former presidents immunity from prosecution for official actions they took as part of their duties as president and prohibits prosecutors from using evidence of official actions when trying to prove that purely personal conduct violated the law.

When Trump paid his lawyer, Michael Cohen Daniels, in October 2016, he was a private citizen campaigning for president but neither elected nor sworn in.

However, Trump was president when Cohen was compensated, and Cohen stated that they discussed the repayment arrangement in the Oval Office. Jurors found that those reimbursements were incorrectly recorded in Trump’s records as legal expenses.

Trump’s lawyers claim that the Manhattan district attorney’s office “tainted” the case with evidence that should not have been allowed, including testimony from Trump’s first term as president.

Prosecutors argue that the high court’s decision “provides no basis for overturning the jury’s verdict.” They said Trump’s conviction involved unofficial actions, personal conduct from which he is not immune.

The Supreme Court did not define a formal law and left that to lower courts. He also did not clearly state how this decision came about. One of Trump’s two federal criminal cases – Relates to state-level cases, such as Trump’s hush money case.

“There are many dark aspects to the court’s decision, but one that is particularly relevant in this case is the issue of what counts as an official action,” said George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. “And I think it’s extremely difficult to argue that this payment to this woman could qualify as official action, for a number of pretty obvious reasons.”

Trump’s efforts to erase the decision have taken on new urgency since his election; Sentencing is due at the end of the month, and possible penalties can range from a fine or probation to up to four years in prison.

President-elects generally do not enjoy the same legal protections as presidents, but Trump and his lawyers may try to turn his status as former and future commander in chief into a kind of “Get Out of Jail Free” card.

One possible argument: Trump will not only save himself from a possible prison sentence, but also protect the country from the disaster of its leader behind bars — no matter how remote that possibility may be.

“He’s going to ask every court in the world to intervene, including the Supreme Court, so things can drag on a little bit longer,” said Syracuse University law professor David Driesen, author of “The Specter of the Dictatorship.” Judicial Activation of Presidential Power.”

At the same time, Trump is trying to move the case back from state court to federal court, where he could also claim immunity. His lawyers asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse the judge’s decision denying the transfer in September.

If Merchan orders a new trial, it is unlikely to happen while Trump is in office.

Trump’s lawyers argued in court documents that, given the Supreme Court’s decision, jurors should not have been allowed to hear matters including Trump’s conversations with then-White House communications director Hope Hicks or statements about another aide’s business practices .

They also said prosecutors were barred from using the 2018 financial disclosure report that Trump was required to submit as president. A footnote noted that Trump reimbursed Cohen in 2017 for unspecified expenses the previous year.

Trump’s lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, argued that prosecutors tried to “attribute criminal motivation” to some of Trump’s actions in office, giving him “unfair prejudice.” For example, they wrote, prosecutors advanced the “dubious theory” that some of Trump’s tweets in 2018 were part of a “pressure campaign” to prevent Cohen from antagonizing him.

Blanche and Bove wrote that the immunity decision “obstructed the investigation of these motives.”

Prosecutors reasoned that the verdict did not apply to the evidence in question and, regardless, the jury considered “only a small fraction of the mountain of testimonial and documentary evidence.”

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Head to PIX11 for the latest news, weather, sports and streaming video.