Trump asks judge to toss hush money conviction and dismiss case following Supreme Court immunity ruling
Trump's lawyers say "official-acts evidence" was used to fill "glaring holes."
Former President Donald Trump has asked a New York judge to dismiss his criminal hush money case and vacate his conviction on 34 felony counts by arguing the trial was "tainted" by evidence and testimony that the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on presidential immunity now makes off-limits.
In a 52-page filing made public on the same day the former president was originally scheduled to be sentenced, Trump's lawyers argued that prosecutors violated the Supreme Court's immunity doctrine by using evidence related to official acts -- including testimony from former White House aides-- to fill "glaring holes in their case."
"Because of the implications for the institution of the Presidency, the use of official-acts evidence was a structural error under the federal Constitution that tainted [the District Attorney's] grand jury proceedings as well as the trial," defense lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote.
Trump's lawyers previewed their plan to request the verdict be tossed in a one-page letter to Judge Juan Merchan last week, and their motion today outlined their argument why the Supreme Court's immunity ruling impacts the New York case, which largely centers on Trump's conduct as a presidential candidate to suppress negative information ahead of the 2016 election.
Merchan opted to delay Trump's sentencing -- originally scheduled for July 11 -- until Sept. 18 to consider the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Manhattan district attorney's office, which was given until July 24 to respond in writing, has not commented on the filing.
Defense attorneys emphasized the importance of former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks' testimony, including her recounting of interactions with Trump in 2018 when reporting about an alleged hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels broke, to demonstrate Trump's knowledge of the payment and preference the story came out after the election.
Trump's lawyers argued that Hicks' testimony was "categorically inadmissible" because she was advising Trump on his official communications, and the Supreme Court's ruling placed limits on the use of testimony from presidential advisors related to official acts.
"This testimony concerned efforts by President Trump to work with Hicks to use the 'long-recognized aspect of Presidential power' known as the 'bully pulpit' to 'persuade Americans, including by speaking forcefully or critically, in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest,'" the filing said.
Defense lawyers used a similar argument to argue that tweets from Trump -- which prosecutors used to demonstrate an alleged "pressure campaign" to prevent former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen from cooperating with authorities in 2018 -- were official communications protected by immunity because the posts "fall well within the core authority of the Nation's Chief Executive."
Trump's lawyers also argued that the Manhattan district attorney's case theory required jurors to assess Trump's motive to actions while serving as president -- an inquiry that the Supreme Court prohibited in their ruling.
Defense lawyers argued that the case overall presents an "affront to, among other things, core constitutional interests central to the functioning of the federal government" that irreparably encroached on a president's official actions.
"As a result, the harms caused by DANY's course of action are irreparable. The appropriate remedy is dismissal," defense lawyers wrote.
Trump's lawyers have so far used the Supreme Court's immunity ruling to attempt to delay -- and eventually throw out -- both the New York case and the former president's federal case in Florida for allegedly retaining classified documents following his presidency.
Legal experts who previously spoke to ABC News about Trump's application of presidential immunity in the New York case were skeptical of the relevance of the ruling, in part because the conduct largely relates to Trump's private actions as a presidential candidate. A federal judge who denied Trump's effort to remove the case to federal court in 2023 ruled that Trump's alleged conduct was "purely a personal item" outside of Trump's official duties.
"The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was purely a personal item of the President -- a cover-up of an embarrassing event," Judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote. "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."