New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan rejected on Dec. 16 a long list of immunity-related arguments President-elect Donald Trump made in an attempt to throw out the guilty verdict he received earlier this year.
Trump had argued that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office improperly used certain evidence, including former White House advisers’ testimonies, since it contained material covered by presidential immunity.
His arguments stemmed from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this year in Trump v. United States, which held that presidents enjoy different levels of immunity from criminal prosecution for official conduct. Trump also said that because sitting presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution, Merchan should dismiss the case.
Merchan disagreed in an order and letter to attorneys on Dec. 16. He said that Trump waited too long or failed to preserve objections to evidence and that information related to both preserved and unpreserved arguments did not receive protection under the doctrine of presidential immunity.
“This Court … finds that the evidence related to the preserved claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Merchan said.
“As to the claims that were unpreserved, this Court finds in the alternative, that when considered on