Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan has overturned Donald Trump's appeal to stall his April 15 hush money criminal trial. The ruling targets one of several maneuvers by Trump's defense to postpone the forthcoming trial, branding the request as untimely. Trump's legal team stands accused of missing numerous opportunities to broach the presidential immunity defense before its formal introduction last month.
The Immunity Question
Trump's lawyers presented their defense on March 7, long past the cut-off date for pretrial bids. As per Judge Merchan, the late filing timeframe casts doubt on the actual intent behind the move. The defense, representing the likely Republican nominee, requested Judge Merchan to adjourn the New York trial indefinitely until Trump's immunity claim in his Washington, D.C., election interference case has been settled.
Continuing his office's conduct under examination, Trump maintains that he is sheltered from charges surrounding official actions undertaken during his presidential term. His legal counsel has not implemented this defense in the hush-money case but posits that specific evidence, including Trump's social media commentary about former lawyer Michael Cohen, originated during his presidency and should thus be exempt from the trial due to his immunity provisions.
Trial Timing and The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is scheduled to deliberate on these arguments on April 25, roughly ten days following the initiation of jury selection in the hush-money case. Trump's top legal aide, Todd Blanche, and the Manhattan district attorney's office declined to comment.
The issue of immunity first presented itself in Trump's Washington criminal case, which centers on allegations of him attempting to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the lead-up to the violent riot by his supporters on January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol.
Merchan's Ruling and The Separating Cases
In his judgment, Merchan demarcated a clear line between the Washington case, coined as the Federal Insurrection Matter, and the hush-money case under his jurisdiction. Where Trump seeks to deploy presidential immunity in Washington to discard the charges based on his possessing "absolute immunity from federal criminal liability," in the hush-money case, he attempts to hinder evidence of what prosecutors describe as his "pressure campaign" against Cohen and other witnesses.
The controversy embroiling the hush money case draws its roots from allegations against Trump suggesting a manipulation of his company's internal records to disguise the true nature of payments made to Michael Cohen, his former attorney. Cohen facilitated Trump in staving off negative stories during his 2016 presidential campaign, including a $130,000 payoff to adult film performer Stormy Daniels to suppress her claims of having had an extramarital affair with Trump.
Dinner in The Storm
Trump affirmed his innocence last year against 34 counts of tampering with business records. He steadfastly denies having engaged in sexual relationships with Daniels, and his lawyers insist the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses, not part of a cover-up.
The hush-money trial, marking the first of Trump's four criminal cases set to appear before a jury, was slated to start March 25. However, Merchan postponed it to April 15 as Trump's lawyers voiced dismay over a last-minute gathering of documents from a preceding federal investigation into the matter that sent Cohen to jail.
More Delays and Questions of Fair Trial
Trump and his team of legal professionals persist in their push for additional delays, transforming dissatisfaction with Merchan and concerns surrounding procuring a fair trial in largely Democratic Manhattan into last-ditch efforts to buy more time. This follows Trump's earlier assertion before TV cameras outside a pretrial hearing in February, where he pronounced, "We want delays."
Trump's lawyers are yet again lobbying for Merchan's recusal from the case, citing a potential conflict of interest due to his daughter's employment as a Democratic political consultant. Merchan dismissed a similar request last year, but his exit at this point could unsettle the trial schedule, necessitating time to assign a new judge and brief them on the case.
In recent filings, the defense posits the trial should be postponed until the "prejudicial media coverage" subsides. Accusing that prosecutors are providing jurors an opportunity for a referendum on Trump's win in 2016, they assert the proceedings are being made about the election.
In his Wednesday decision, Merchan held that Trump's failure to introduce the immunity discussion seemed unconvincing, given the earlier reference by the former president's attorneys last year in a futile attempt to move the hush-money case from state court to federal court.
With no trial completion in sight and whether a former president possesses immunity from federal prosecution for official acts taken while in office remains legally untested, these are uncertain times for Trump, his attorneys, and the American public.
