Attorneys for former President Donald Trump have raised a presidential immunity defense in the criminal case in New York, filing a motion to exclude certain evidence in the case and adjourn trial as the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over President Trump’s presidential immunity defense in a separate criminal case.
President Trump has been indicted in four separate jurisdictions with charges totaling 91 counts, and has raised presidential immunity as a defense several times.
In New York, where he is set to go to trial on March 25, he was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. In Washington, D.C., he was charged with four counts of obstruction and conspiracy for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, and the case has been appealed all the way to the high court.
The Supreme Court has set arguments for April 25, and defense attorneys in New York say the March 25 trial should be postponed until the high court issues a decision.
The defense also argued that prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office should not be able to use evidence from President Trump’s time in office.
“The Court must preclude the People from offering evidence at trial of President Trump’s official acts as the Commander in Chief,” reads a March 7 court filing made public in redacted form on March 11.
2018 Statements
Prosecutors have argued they should be allowed to present evidence of a “pressure campaign” President Trump allegedly initiated in 2018 against Michael Cohen, which the defense described as “fictitious.”
Mr. Cohen was previously President Trump’s personal lawyer and had an executive position in the Trump Organization, but he later became a vocal critic of his former boss and made several public claims, leading to two investigations.
Mr. Cohen had claimed President Trump inflated his net worth to obtain better business deals, leading to an investigation by New York Attorney General Letitia James that resulted in a civil fraud petition. A New York judge recently issued a judgment requiring President Trump to pay more than $350 million in penalties, and President Trump is now appealing the decision.
Mr. Cohen had also claimed that then-candidate Trump asked him to pay off an adult actress alleging an affair to prevent negative press during his 2016 campaign. Mr. Bragg’s investigation resulted in an indictment charging President Trump only for “falsifying business documents,” but in statements and court filings has framed the case as one about election integrity.
Based on the prosecutors’ court filings, they will use public statements and Twitter posts President Trump made in 2017 and 2018 as evidence toward allegations that President Trump “pressured” Mr. Cohen into silence.
The statement includes Twitter posts about Mr. Cohen refusing to “break” and “make up stories” in order to obtain a plea deal. At the time, Mr. Cohen was still President Trump’s attorney for personal matters, and President Trump had given media statements refuting claims that he used campaign money to quash a news story.
Given the timeline, the statements would have been made in President Trump’s “official capacity as the nation’s Chief Executive,” the motion reads, and they asked the court to prohibit it.
They also argued the prosecutors have been vague in what statements they want to use, and the defense needs “sufficiently specific notice of the nature and extent of that evidence to allow President Trump or the Court to distinguish between personal and official acts,” citing a recent court order in a federal civil case that stated it was necessary to give President Trump “every opportunity” to present a presidential immunity defense.
Untested Legal Territory
The parameters of President Trump’s presidential immunity have been debated in several jurisdictions already, both civil and criminal, and will soon be heard in the Supreme Court.
“This area of law is evolving in real time,” Trump attorneys in New York argued.
The Supreme Court limited their review to the question of “whether and is so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
Supreme Court precedent established presidential immunity from civil lawsuits, but the court had not previously addressed presidential immunity in criminal prosecutions. A decision from the Supreme Court is likely to affect all four of President Trump’s criminal cases.
A secondary issue is the line between personal and official acts during President Trump’s tenure, and a possible separation of actions he can be prosecuted for and actions covered by presidential immunity. A federal appeals court had recently ruled that several Jan. 6, 2021, related civil cases against President Trump could go forward, finding the actions cited personal acts of a candidate rather than official acts of a president. The issue of whether this immunity applies to former presidents is also new territory.
The high court decision would inform and potentially limit the evidence allowed in the New York case, defense attorneys said.
“Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, and consistent with the remand in Blassingame [civil case against President Trump], the Court should hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to identify and preclude documentary and testimonial official acts evidence based on presidential immunity,” the motion reads.
From The Epoch Times
