CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams (Credit: CNN)
A former Justice Department official said on Tuesday that the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity could impact Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s business documents case against former President Donald Trump.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump’s claims of immunity over “official acts” as president in a case stemming from an indictment secured by special counsel Jack Smith over the former president’s efforts to contest the 2020 election in a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams told “CNN This Morning” host Kasie Hunt that some of the evidence introduced in the trial, including the testimony of former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, might be in question.
CNN Expert Says SCOTUS Immunity Decision Could Impact Evidence Used In Alvin Bragg’s Case pic.twitter.com/iRspmwjMVL
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 2, 2024
“Let’s talk about what the Supreme Court decided,” Williams said. “What they‘d said was that evidence of official acts cannot even be used to help support prosecuting someone for unofficial acts of the presidency. So case in point, let’s use Donald Trump’s New York trial. Obviously it‘s personal conduct, private behavior, sleeping with porn stars, cooking the books of your corporation, whatever else, right however, it relied on the testimony of Hope Hicks, a former White House aide, and other evidence that is tied to his time in the White House. Now, Trump’s team can plausibly claim some of these were official acts that can’t even be used as evidence.”
(Read more: The Daily Caller, 7/02/2024) (Archive)
A short while later:
Prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office agreed on Tuesday to delay former President Donald Trump’s sentencing, The New York Times reported.
A Manhattan jury convicted Trump May 30 on 34 felony counts of falsification of business records. Bragg’s office agreed to a request to delay the sentencing in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling that found presidents have immunity from prosecution for “official acts” taken in office, but called the motion by Trump’s attorneys meritless, according to the NYT.
“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” Joshua Steinglass, an assistant district attorney, wrote in response, according to the NYT. (Read more: The Daily Caller, 7/02/2024) (Archive)