Former President Donald Trump is currently set to be sentenced in mid-September by trial judge Juan Merchan following the jury finding him guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in Manhattan in May.
Since the trial, there have been several developments that may impact that sentencing, not least of which is the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity. That ruling prompted a delay in the sentencing (which was originally set for July 11), so that Merchan could determine its impact on the trial proceedings, including his evidentiary rulings. In addition to filing post-trial motions to set aside the verdict, Trump’s legal team has also sought Merchan’s recusal from the matter due to his perceived conflict of interest — thus far, to no avail.
Hell No, He Won’t Go: Judge Merchan Again Declines to Recuse in Trump Manhattan Case
IRONY: On Day He Was Supposed to Be Sentenced, Trump Files Motion to Have His NY Convictions Thrown Out
On Tuesday, Trump’s legal team again sought to remove the case from New York State Court to federal court on the basis that the trial conducted against him was biased and that he should be immune from prosecution pursuant to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. U.S. on presidential immunity.
The judge who oversaw Trump’s initial attempt to remove the case to the Southern District of New York in 2023, Senior Judge Alvin Kenneth Hellerstein, issued a four-page order denying Trump’s latest request. In the order, which may be viewed in its entirety below, Hellerstein states that he has no jurisdiction to determine the propriety of the Manhattan trial — that determination is for the New York appellate courts to make.
However, Hellerstein agreed the argument regarding immunity warranted review. Citing back to his July 2023 order, in which he found that immunity did not apply to the conduct for which Trump was charged, Hellerstein stated:
I held in my Order and Opinion of July 19, 2023 (ECF N0. 43) that “[h]ush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President‘s official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President‘s official duties.” Id. at 13. My holding followed an evidentiary hearing where The People showed conclusively that Mr. Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for advancing the hush money payments, including two checks signed in the White House by Mr. Trump. I held that Mr. Trump had not satisfied the burden of proof required to show the basis of removal. My holding of a hush money reimbursement remains true regardless of who has the burden, whether The People or Mr. Trump. Nothing in the Supreme Court‘s opinion affects my previous conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.
Thus, Hellerstein again denied Trump’s request that the case be removed to federal court.
Hellerstein’s ruling came hours after Manhattan prosecutors raised objections to Trump ‘s effort to delay post-trial decisions in the case while he sought to have the federal court step in.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office argued in a letter to the judge presiding over the case in state court that he had no legal obligation to hold off on post-trial decisions and wait for Hellerstein to rule.
Prosecutors urged the trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, not to delay his rulings on two key defense requests: Trump’s call to delay sentencing until after the November election, and his bid to overturn the verdict and dismiss the case in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.
Merchan is expected to rule on Trump’s motion to set aside the verdict on September 16. Assuming he denies the motion, sentencing is set to take place on September 18.
DJT – NY – Order Re Removal – 9-3-24 – #50 by Susie Moore on Scribd
