Trump’s legal team, who previously failed to shift the case to federal court before the trial, now seek an “unbiased forum, free from local hostilities.” They state that in state court, Trump has faced “bias, conflicts of interest, and appearances of impropriety.” Should the case be moved to federal court, Trump’s lawyers plan to have the verdict overturned and the case dismissed on immunity grounds.
Trump’s sentencing in state court is scheduled for September 18, around seven weeks before Election Day. His lawyers argue that proceeding with sentencing at that time would amount to election interference, raising concerns about Trump potentially being jailed as early voting begins.
“The ongoing proceedings will continue to cause direct and irreparable harm to President Trump — the leading candidate in the 2024 Presidential election — and voters located far beyond Manhattan,” wrote Trump’s lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove in a 64-page U.S. District Court filing.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, declined to comment. A spokesperson for New York’s state court system also did not respond to requests for comment.
In May, Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. This was related to a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during his 2016 presidential run. The payment was made by Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen and was later reimbursed by Trump. The reimbursements were logged as legal expenses. Trump maintains that the allegations of the affair were false, the reimbursements were for legal work, and the logs were accurate. He claims the case is part of a politically motivated “witch hunt” to damage his current presidential campaign.Even if the case is not moved to federal court, the ensuing legal maneuvers could delay Trump’s sentencing, providing him with critical time as he manages the aftermath of his criminal conviction and the final stages of his White House campaign. Separately, the trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, is considering Trump’s requests to postpone sentencing until after Election Day on November 5 and to overturn the verdict in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity.The Supreme Court’s July 1 decision limits the prosecution of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts evidence pointing to a president’s unofficial actions as illegal. Trump’s lawyers argue that prosecutors hurried to trial without waiting for this Supreme Court decision, and the trial was “tainted” by evidence inadmissible under the ruling. They refer to testimony from former White House staffers on Trump’s reaction to the hush money deal’s news coverage and his tweets from 2018.
Trump’s lawyers had previously invoked presidential immunity in a failed attempt last year to move the hush money case to federal court. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected this, stating that the allegations in the indictment were purely personal, unrelated to Trump’s official duties as president.
“The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely a personal item of the president — a cover-up of an embarrassing event,” wrote Hellerstein in July 2023.
“Hush 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,” Hellerstein added.
Trump’s lawyers argued in their recent filing that circumstances have changed since their initial request was denied. They claim state prosecutors misled the court by previously asserting that the trial wouldn’t involve Trump’s official duties or presidential actions.
They point to testimony from Cohen about Trump’s potential use of pardon power and his reactions to various investigations as pertaining to actions Trump took while president, which they argue should be considered under the federal court.
“President Trump is entitled to a federal forum for his Presidential immunity defense based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States,” Blanche and Bove wrote. “After this case is properly removed, President Trump will establish that the charges must be dismissed.”
The lawyers also reiterated claims that Judge Merchan treated Trump unfairly due to a conflict of interest, citing that Merchan’s daughter is a Democratic political consultant. They contended that the judge imposed an unwarranted gag order on Trump, limiting his ability to respond to political attacks.
Merchan recently rejected Trump’s request to recuse himself, calling the demand a rehash “rife with inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims” about his impartiality. The state appeals court upheld the gag order.
“Merchan is poised to incarcerate President Trump in the final weeks of the campaign, and he has maintained an unwarranted and unconstitutional prior restraint on President Trump’s ability to respond to political attacks by criticizing the New York County proceedings,” Blanche and Bove stated.
With inputs from AP and other agencies
