Federal judge rejects Trump’s bid to move hush-money criminal case, keeping it in New York state court

[ad_1]

NEW YORK (AP) Donald Trumpcant made a federal case out of this one.

US District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on Wednesday rejected the former president’s bid to move his hush-money criminal case from New York state court to federal court, ruling that Trump’s lawyers failed to meet the a high legal bar for changing jurisdiction.

Hellerstein found that the allegations pertained to Trump’s personal life, not presidential duties that merited transfer to federal court.

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was merely a personal matter for the President as a cover-up for an embarrassing event, Hellerstein wrote in a 25-page ruling. The hush money paid to an adult movie star is not related to an official act by the President. It does not reflect in any way the color of the Presidents official duties.

The Hellersteins’ decision sets the stage for Trump to appear in state court in Manhattan early next spring, overlapping the 2024 presidential primary season in what could be a frenetic stretch of legal action. as the twice-indicted Republican seeks a return to the White House.

Separately, Trump has been charged in federal court in Florida with illegally storing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate and obstructing investigators. Prosecutors want that case to go to trial in December.

Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche declined comment on the Hellersteins’ decision, which could be appealed to the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan.

READ MORE: After delays, Trump valet Walt Nauta pleads not guilty in classified documents case

The judge signaled his decision at a hearing on the matter late last month, scoffing at defense claims that the alleged misconduct at the root of the Trumps’ cases was paying his longtime personal attorney. that Michael Cohen as part of a scheme to bury the allegations of the relationship that emerged in his first campaign was within the color of his office as president.

Hellerstein said the evidence suggested Cohen, who arranged and made some of the hush payments, was hired privately, not under color of any presidential office or associated with it. There are invoices showing how much Cohen was paid, but no proof of what he did, the judge said at the June 27 hearing.

Trump, a Republican, pleaded not guilty April 4 in state court to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments made to Cohen for his role in paying $130,000 to the adult movie actor Stephanie Clifford, known as Stormy Daniels, who claims she had an extramarital sexual encounter with Trump years ago.

Cohen also arranged for the National Enquirer to pay Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 for the rights to her story about an alleged affair, which the supermarket tabloid then suppressed in a dubious practice of journalism known as catch-and-kill.

Trump has denied that he had sexual encounters with either woman. His lawyers said the payments to Cohen were legitimate legal expenses and not part of any cover-up.

Trump’s lawyers asked federal court in Manhattan in May to take control of the hush-money case, arguing that he cannot be tried in state court because some of the conduct alleged in his landmark indictment took place in 2017. while he was president, including checks purporting to be him. wrote while sitting in the Oval Office.

READ MORE: Pentagon plans to protect classified information with tighter controls after documents leak

The lawyers, Susan Necheles and Blanche, argued that federal officials including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from conduct committed while in office.

The move to federal court means a broader, more politically diverse jury pool drawn not only from heavily Democratic Manhattan, where Trump is unpopular, but also from a handful of suburbanites. that county north of the city where he has more political support.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, fought to keep it in state court. Matthew Colangelo, a senior adviser to DA Alvin Bragg, did not dispute the payments and reimbursements that were quiet related to Trump’s official duties as president. He also disputes whether the legal definition of federal officer applies to a president or only to other members of the government.

If Hellerstein had sided with Trump and moved the case to federal court, former presidents’ lawyers could have tried to dismiss the charges on the grounds that federal officials are immune from criminal prosecution. action taken as part of their official job duties.

US law allows criminal prosecutions to be transferred from state to federal court if they involve actions taken by federal government officials as part of their official duties, among other qualifications. Trump’s request is unprecedented because he is the first former president to be charged with a crime.

Legal arguments aside, Trump has a practical reason for seeking to move the case to federal court: he doesn’t think he’ll get a fair shake in state court.

Trump claims that the New York state court system is very unfair to him and that the state court judge presiding over the case, Juan Manuel Merchan, is a Trump-hating judge with a family full of haters by Trump.

Last month, the Trumps’ lawyers asked Merchan to step aside from the case, arguing that he was biased because his daughter does political consulting for some of Trumps Democratic rivals. Merchan has not yet made a decision on the request. A state ethics advisory panel recently said he should not recuse himself.

Trumps hush-money trial is scheduled to begin in state court on March 25, 2024 in an increasingly crowded legal and political calendar for the Republican frontrunner. In the classified documents case, federal prosecutors have proposed a trial date of Dec. 11 while the Trumps’ lawyers are seeking a delay until after next year’s election.

Meanwhile, two civil suits against Trump are set to go to trial in the coming months: in October, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed charges that he and his company fraudulently misrepresented the value of assets; and in January, a second trial involving the writerE. Jean Carrolls claims she defamed him when he denied allegations he sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s.

[ad_2]