Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Newsweek: Will Trump's Hush Money Case Be Dismissed? Judge Merchan's Options
Newsweek - Will Trump's Hush Money Case Be Dismissed? Judge Merchan's Options
Published Nov 29, 2024 at 12:23 PM EST
By Carine Harb
Associate Editor, My Turn
Donald Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts relating to hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, to prevent public allegations of an affair.
Originally set for Nov. 26, 2024, Trump's sentencing was indefinitely postponed by Judge Juan Merchan following his reelection to the Presidency at the start of the month, due to concerns of prosecuting a sitting president. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicated sentencing might not occur until Trump's term ends in 2029, drawing criticism from some legal experts who argue the delay undermines justice.
Trump's legal team is set to file a motion to dismiss by Dec. 2, 2024, with prosecutors responding by December 9. The decision on this motion will determine the case's future and its implications for Trump's presidency. Trump denied the charges and said the case was politically motivated.
Ahead of the motion, Newsweek has reached out to legal experts for their analysis of the potential outcomes and broader implications.
Barbara L. McQuade, Professor, Criminal law, University of Michigan
I do not know what Judge Merchan will do, but I think the appropriate decision would be to deny the motion to dismiss the case and vacate the jury's verdict. The conduct at issue occurred before Donald Trump took office, so it is not protected by presidential immunity as articulated by the Supreme Court following the verdict in this case.
At trial, prosecution evidence included a conversation between Trump and a staffer that occurred while Trump was in office, but it did not pertain to core constitutional duties of a president, so it would seem that any presumption of immunity for that evidence was overcome by other evidence in the case that this conversation was outside the scope of a president's official duties. Therefore, the jury's verdict of guilty in 34 counts should be upheld.
/snip
Published Nov 29, 2024 at 12:23 PM EST
By Carine Harb
Associate Editor, My Turn
Donald Trump was convicted in May of 34 felony counts relating to hush money payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, to prevent public allegations of an affair.
Originally set for Nov. 26, 2024, Trump's sentencing was indefinitely postponed by Judge Juan Merchan following his reelection to the Presidency at the start of the month, due to concerns of prosecuting a sitting president. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg indicated sentencing might not occur until Trump's term ends in 2029, drawing criticism from some legal experts who argue the delay undermines justice.
Trump's legal team is set to file a motion to dismiss by Dec. 2, 2024, with prosecutors responding by December 9. The decision on this motion will determine the case's future and its implications for Trump's presidency. Trump denied the charges and said the case was politically motivated.
Ahead of the motion, Newsweek has reached out to legal experts for their analysis of the potential outcomes and broader implications.
Barbara L. McQuade, Professor, Criminal law, University of Michigan
I do not know what Judge Merchan will do, but I think the appropriate decision would be to deny the motion to dismiss the case and vacate the jury's verdict. The conduct at issue occurred before Donald Trump took office, so it is not protected by presidential immunity as articulated by the Supreme Court following the verdict in this case.
At trial, prosecution evidence included a conversation between Trump and a staffer that occurred while Trump was in office, but it did not pertain to core constitutional duties of a president, so it would seem that any presumption of immunity for that evidence was overcome by other evidence in the case that this conversation was outside the scope of a president's official duties. Therefore, the jury's verdict of guilty in 34 counts should be upheld.
/snip