Donald Trump’s federal criminal cases are dead and his state criminal case in Georgia might be dead, though Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is trying to revive it. But there’s impending action in his New York state criminal case, which the president is appealing while he runs the country.
Trump had to get new lawyers to represent him in the so-called hush money case, because he tapped much of his defense team for high-ranking Justice Department posts. The new lawyers from top law firm Sullivan & Cromwell have appellate experience, including at the Supreme Court on behalf of the government during Trump’s first term. That experience may come in handy as the case climbs the appellate ladder. To be sure, it may be a while before the case reaches the high court, and which issues present Trump’s best chance at overturning his conviction could become clearer over the coming months and perhaps years as the appeal develops.
That experience may come in handy as the case climbs the appellate ladder.
At trial last year, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, for covering up a hush money scheme in connection with the 2016 presidential race. Earlier this month, Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge, which was basically a sentence without any real penalty due to his then-impending White House return. The guilty verdicts did not require incarceration under state law, though relatively brief incarceration or probation are other sentencing options for that crime.
Trump pleaded not guilty in all four of his criminal cases; the New York case is the only one that went to trial before the election.
The Supreme Court declined to block Trump’s Jan. 10 sentencing before he took office, but while doing so the court left open the possibility of eventually ruling on his behalf. For one thing, the court split 5-4, so it almost didn’t even let the sentencing go forward. Republican-appointed Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, but didn’t explain why.
The majority, which in addition to the three Democratic appointees consisted of Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett, said it refused to halt the sentencing because “the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.” The majority also said it was permitting the sentencing because of the lenient unconditional discharge that Merchan signaled ahead of time that he would impose. So the court that previously granted Trump broad criminal immunity in the federal election interference case may yet have the final word on his New York conviction, but it could be a while before the “ordinary course” of that appeal unfolds. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in Donald Trump’s legal cases.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
