Attorneys for former President Donald Trump have raised a presidential immunity defense in the criminal case in New York, filing a motion to exclude certain evidence in the case and adjourn the trial as the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over President Trump’s presidential immunity defense in a separate criminal case.
President Trump has been indicted in four separate jurisdictions with charges totaling 91 counts and has raised presidential immunity as a defense several times.
In New York, where he is set to go to trial on March 25, he was charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. In Washington, D.C., he was charged with four counts of obstruction and conspiracy for his actions on Jan. 6, 2021, and the case has been appealed all the way to the high court.
Trump in Law Court (Credits: CNN)
The Supreme Court has set arguments for April 25, and defense attorneys in New York say the March 25 trial should be postponed until the high court issues a decision.
The defense also argued that prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office should not be able to use evidence from President Trump’s time in office.
“The Court must preclude the People from offering evidence at trial of President Trump’s official acts as the Commander in Chief,” reads a March 7 court filing made public in redacted form on March 11.
The invocation of presidential immunity in Trump’s defense raises complex legal questions. Presidential immunity, also known as executive privilege, is a concept rooted in the separation of powers doctrine, which seeks to prevent the executive branch from being unduly burdened by litigation.
However, the extent of this immunity, especially in cases of alleged criminal conduct, has been a matter of debate and legal interpretation.
In the case before the Supreme Court, Trump’s attorneys are expected to argue that the former president cannot be prosecuted for actions taken while in office, as such actions are protected by presidential immunity.
Trump (Credits: Law & Crime)
They may also argue that allowing such prosecutions would unduly interfere with the functioning of the presidency and set a dangerous precedent for future presidents.
On the other hand, prosecutors may argue that presidential immunity does not extend to criminal conduct, especially conduct that occurred before or after a president’s time in office.
They may contend that holding a former president accountable for criminal actions is necessary for upholding the rule of law and ensuring that no one is above the law.
The outcome of these legal battles could have significant implications not only for Trump’s legal fate but also for the broader understanding of presidential immunity and the limits of executive power.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is eagerly awaited by legal experts and observers alike, as it could help clarify the scope and extent of presidential immunity in future cases.
