Unraveling the Legal Saga: Trump's Conviction and the Supreme Court Ruling

The Manhattan prosecutors who secured Donald Trump's historic criminal conviction have disputed the former US president's claim that the verdict should be set aside in the wake of a US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. In a court filing, the prosecutors argued that the Supreme Court's ruling had no bearing on their case, which stemmed from hush money paid to a porn star.

Uncovering the Truth: A Detailed Examination of the Case

The Charges and the Verdict

Trump, the Republican nominee in the November 5th election, was convicted on May 30th on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up his former lawyer Michael Cohen's 0,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels for her silence before the 2016 election about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump. Trump denies any encounter with Daniels and has vowed to appeal the guilty verdict. He is the first US president, past or present, to be convicted of a crime.The prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, argued that all the evidence used in the case concerned "wholly unofficial conduct" or, at most, official conduct for which any presumption of immunity has been rebutted. They contended that the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity had no impact on their case.

The Supreme Court Ruling and Its Implications

In a 6-3 ruling on July 1st, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents cannot face criminal charges over official acts, and that evidence of official acts cannot be used in a prosecution on private matters. This ruling raised concerns about the potential impact on the case against Trump.However, legal experts believe that Judge Juan Merchan is unlikely to grant Trump's request to toss the verdict, as much of the conduct at issue predated Trump's 2017-2021 presidency and relates to personal matters, not official acts. The prosecutors have argued that the Supreme Court's ruling has no bearing on their case.

The Defense's Argument and the Prosecutors' Response

Two weeks ago, Trump's defense lawyers urged the judge to toss the jury's guilty verdict because prosecutors relied on evidence of his official acts during the trial, which they said was improper in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. The defense lawyers took issue with the introduction of evidence of Twitter posts Trump made in 2018 about Cohen, which the prosecutors said showed Trump was aware that his former lawyer had paid off Daniels.In their court filing, the prosecutors responded by stating that Trump made the posts in his "unofficial capacity." They argued that the evidence used in the trial either concerned wholly unofficial conduct or, at most, official conduct for which any presumption of immunity has been rebutted.

The Road Ahead: Sentencing and Potential Appeals

Judge Merchan has delayed Trump's sentencing from July 11th to September 18th, less than two months before the election, to allow his lawyers the chance to make their case. Merchan has said he will decide on Trump's arguments by September 6th.If the conviction is upheld, the case will proceed to sentencing. Once he is sentenced, Trump could formally appeal the verdict and the sentencing to a higher-level state court. The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for Trump's political future and the broader legal landscape.