Judge rejects Trump's bid to dismiss hush money conviction because of Supreme Court immunity ruling

A Manhattan judge on Monday upheld Donald Trump’s felony conviction for falsifying business records in order to hide an affair from the public ahead of the 2016 presidential election, rejecting arguments from the president-elect’s legal team of presidential immunity.

State Supreme Court Justice Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump’s historic criminal trial, sided with prosecutors and said the defense’s claims "relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections."

Merchan, in a 41-page ruling, wrote that "the People's use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch."

Trump's lawyers could not immediately be reached for comment.

In a statement, Trump communications director Steven Cheung said Merchan’s decision was a “direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity, and other longstanding jurisprudence.”

“This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed,” the statement said.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office, which prosecuted the case, declined to comment.

Trump was convicted in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to conceal a sexual liaison with adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

Trump, his then-personal attorney Michael Cohen and National Enquirer editor David Pecker conspired to "catch and kill" the story of the liaison — meaning pay Daniels for the story, but never publish it, the jury found.

Daniel was paid $130,000 for her story by Cohen, who was later reimbursed by Trump, the jury found.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a July ruling, said presidents have broad immunity from prosecution of their official conduct.

Trump’s lawyers argued to Merchan, citing the ruling from the nation’s highest court, that the indictment against Trump should be dismissed and the jury’s verdict should be set aside because it was reached using, in part, testimony from witnesses — including White House Communications Director Hope Hicks and White House aide Madeleine Westerhout — who testified about some of Trump’s actions while he was president.

Trump’s lawyers said in court papers the testimony heard by the jury had "tainted" the trial.

But prosecutors argued Trump’s conduct had preceded his presidency and was a personal and political matter.

"The criminal charges here ... exclusively stem from defendant’s ‘unofficial acts’ — conduct for which ‘there is no immunity’" prosecutor Matthew Colangelo wrote earlier this year in response to the defense.

Separately, Merchan still must rule on another motion, filed by Trump's criminal defense attorneys Todd Blache and Emil Bove, both of whom have been named by Trump for top U.S. Justice Department posts, for the verdict to be set aside because allowing it to stand would impede Trump’s presidency.

An "immediate dismissal" of the case is warranted by "the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the interests of justice, in order to facilitate the orderly transition of Executive power following President Trump’s overwhelming victory in the 2024 Presidential election," Trump’s lawyers wrote in an earlier letter to the judge.

Mark Zauderer, a Manhattan litigator and appellate expert, said Merchan's decision is virtually bulletproof.

"He found that the acts that were involved in the prosecution fell outside the scope of immunity. And even if he's wrong, he found that to be harmless error," he said, adding that a more difficult issue remains to be determined — which the judge has not yet reached —is whether or not the criminal proceedings can proceed against somebody who is a president-elect or president after January.

"It's a little bit of a smack in Trump's attorneys," Nassau County defense attorney Michael Scotto said, regarding Merchan's critique that Todd Blanche, Emil Bove and Susan Necheles did not object to testimony from Westerhout or Cohen and therefore could not appeal it now. The only testimony that Merchan acknowledged fall under the category of "official acts" came during Hicks' time on the witness stand, but the judge decided ultimately that it was a "harmless error."

Trump, the first former president to be convicted of criminal charges, has already seen his legal fortunes improve since he was reelected to a second nonconsecutive term as president on Nov. 5.

Merchan put an indefinite pause on Trump’s previously scheduled sentencing. Trump faces up to 4 years in prison if he’s ever sentenced, but many legal experts have said he would likely receive probation since he is a first-time offender of a nonviolent act.

Trump is scheduled to be sworn in as president on Jan. 20.

With Janon Fisher and The Associated Press

By Nicole Fuller

nicole.fuller@newsday.com@NicoleFuller

Nicole Fuller is Newsday's senior criminal justice reporter. She began working at Newsday in 2012 and previously covered local government.