&w=3840&q=100)
Appeals court to hear Trump's bid to overturn hush money conviction
President Donald Trump 's quest to erase his criminal conviction heads to a federal appeals court Wednesday. It's one way he's trying to get last year's hush money verdict overturned.
A three-judge panel is set to hear arguments in Trump's long-running fight to get the New York case moved from state court to federal court, where he could then try to have the verdict thrown out on presidential immunity grounds.
The Republican is asking the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a lower-court judge twice rejected the move. As part of the request, Trump wants the federal appeals court to seize control of the criminal case and then ultimately decide his appeal of the verdict, which is now pending in a state appellate court.
The 2nd Circuit should determine once and for all that this unprecedented criminal prosecution of a former and current President of the United States belongs in federal court," Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing.
The Manhattan district attorney's office, which prosecuted Trump's case, wants it to stay in state court. Trump's Justice Department now partly run by his former criminal defence lawyers backs his bid to move the case to federal court.
If Trump loses, he could go to the US Supreme Court.
Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim and said he did nothing wrong. It was the only one of his four criminal cases to go to trial.
Trump's lawyers first sought to move the case to federal court following his March 2023 indictment, arguing that federal officers including former presidents have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from conduct performed while in office. Part of the criminal case involved checks he wrote while he was president.
They tried again after his conviction, arguing that Trump's historic prosecution violated his constitutional rights and ran afoul of the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, which was decided about a month after the hush money trial ended.
The ruling reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president's unofficial actions were illegal.
US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied both requests, ruling in part that Trump's conviction involved his personal life, not his work as president.
In a four-page ruling, Hellerstein wrote that nothing about the high court's ruling affected his prior conclusion that hush money payments at issue in Trump's case were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.
Trump's lawyers argue that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court's presidential immunity decision, and that prosecutors erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under the ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018.
Trump's former criminal defence lawyer Todd Blanche is now the deputy US attorney general, the Justice Department's second-in-command. Another of his lawyers, Emil Bove, has a high-ranking Justice Department position.
The trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, rejected Trump's requests to throw out the conviction on presidential immunity grounds and sentenced him on January 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment.
Appearing by video at his sentencing, Trump called the case a political witch hunt, a weaponisation of government and an embarrassment to New York.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
35 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Donald Trump to impose travel restrictions on 36 countries? Here's what we know
The Trump administration is contemplating about adding travel restrictions for 36 more countries. Some of them are close US partners, like Egypt and Djibouti. This is based on an internal memo reviewed by The Washington Post. The memo was signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and sent to US diplomats on Saturday. It says the listed countries have 60 days to follow new rules set by the State Department. The State Department said some of the countries have failed to meet certain standards, like having 'no competent or cooperative central government authority' to give out trusted identity documents. Others have 'a large number of citizens who have violated the terms of their visas.' The memo adds that if a country agrees to take back third-country nationals being deported from the US, it may help ease other concerns. The countries facing possible visa limits, travel bans, or other steps include 25 in Africa: Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cameroon, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Caribbean countries on the list are: Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Saint Lucia. The memo also names four countries in Asia: Bhutan, Cambodia, Kyrgyzstan, and Syria. And three in Oceania: Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. These countries have until 8 a.m. Wednesday to send the State Department a first plan on how they will meet the new rules. A State Department spokesperson would not talk about the memo but said the department is always 'reevaluating policies to ensure Americans are safe and foreign nationals abide by the law.' It is still not clear if the new travel limits will begin after the deadline. Also Read: Donald Trump warns Iran: 'Full might of US military will come down on you if…' This memo comes one week after Trump brought back his first-term travel ban. That order blocks entry from 12 countries and limits travel from 7 others. In January, Trump signed another order asking the State Department to list countries 'for which vetting and screening information is so deficient as to warrant a partial or full suspension' on their citizens. These moves are part of Trump's larger immigration plan, including what he called the 'largest mass deportation operation' in U.S. history. His plan also includes canceling visas and ending protections for tens of thousands of immigrants.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Far left is murderously violent': Is Minnesota shooting suspect Vance Luther Boelter a Democrat?
Vance Luther Boelter worked for Minnesota Dem Governor Tim Walz but his pal says he is a Trump supporter 57-year-old Vance Luther Boelter allegedly shot and killed Minnesota politician Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman at their home in Brooklyn Park -- posing as a police officer. A manhunt has been launched while Democrats and Republicans are at odds with the political affiliation of Boelter -- as the killed politicians were Democrats. Roommate says Boelter is a Trump voter According to reports, a roommate of Boelter who knew him from fourth grade claimed that the suspect was a Trump supporter. David Carlson, the friend, claimed to have received the last text message from Boelter which said: "I may be dead shortly. I wish it hasn't gone this way. I don't want to say anything more. You guys don't know anything about this. I love you guys and I am sorry for all the troubles this has caused." The friend, however, said they did not speak about politics lately. — elonmusk (@elonmusk) Elon Musk reacted to the murders and shared an X post writing: 'The far left is murderously violent". The post he had shared reflected on how the left became a "full-blown" domestic terrorist organization. "The left kills the CEO of United Healthcare. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Kills two Israeli ambassadors staffers. Attempts twice to assassinate the President. Doxes and attempts to murder federal ICE agents and Police - all week. And now kills a MN state rep and her husband and injures a Senator and his wife. The left has become a full blown domestic terrorist organization," the post said. Is Boelter a Democrat? The MAGA rejected that Boelter was a Trump supporter and emphasized that he was employed by Governor Tim Walz and there were 'No Kings Day' poster found in his car. "The media wants to gaslight you into thinking the shooter in Minnesota is a Trump supporter. He was appointed by Walz. He was friends with Walz. And he had NO KINGS flyers in his car. No Kings is a violent group and it's no surprise the shooting took place the day the NO KINGS protests kicked off across the country. The organizers of NO KINGS and @GovTimWalz need to be detained by the FBI and interrogated," Trump aide Laura Loomer said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Despite SC nod, HCs not keen on appointing retired judges to tackle backlog
New Delhi: Despite the Supreme Court clearing the idea nearly five months ago, the high courts seem not to be keen on appointing ad-hoc judges to tackle pending criminal cases, details available with the government showed. According to people aware of the procedure to appoint Supreme Court and high court judges, none of the high court collegiums have so far recommended names of retired judges to be appointed as ad-hoc judges. There are 25 high courts in the country. Till June 11, no high court collegiums sent any such proposal to the Union Law Ministry . Considering a backlog of over 18 lakh criminal cases, the Supreme Court on January 30 allowed the high courts to appoint ad-hoc judges, not exceeding 10 per cent of the court's total sanctioned strength. Article 224A of the Constitution allows the appointment of retired judges as ad-hoc judges in high courts to help deal with pendency. Live Events According to the laid down procedure, the respective high court collegiums send recommendations or names of candidates to be appointed as HC judges to the Department of Justice in the law ministry. The department then adds inputs and details of the candidates before forwarding the same to the Supreme Court Collegium. The SC Collegium then takes a final call and recommends to the government to appoint the selected persons as judges. The president signs the 'warrant of appointment' of the newly-appointed judge. The procedure to appoint ad-hoc judges will be the same except that the president will not sign the warrant of appointment. But the assent of the president will be sought for appointing ad-hoc judges. Except in one case, there is no precedence of appointing retired judges as ad-hoc HC judges, officials had earlier pointed out. In a judgement dated April 20, 2021, on the appointment of ad-hoc judges in the high courts, the top court imposed certain conditions. However, later a special Supreme Court bench comprising then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justices B R Gavai (incumbent CJI) and Surya Kant relaxed certain conditions and kept some in abeyance. The verdict, which was authored by former chief justice S A Bobde, directed retired high court judges to be appointed as ad-hoc ones for a period of two to three years to clear the backlog. While one condition said that ad-hoc judges cannot be appointed if a high court was working with 80 per cent of its sanctioned strength, the other said ad-hoc judges could sit separately on benches to deal with cases. Relaxing the conditions, the court said the requirement that vacancies should not be more than 20 per cent of the sanctioned strength for the time being shall be kept in abeyance. The bench also said each high court should keep the appointment to two to five ad-hoc judges and not exceed 10 per cent of the total sanctioned strength. "The ad-hoc judges will sit in a bench presided over by a sitting judge of the high court and decide pending criminal appeals," the apex court's order said. The rarely used Article 224A of the Constitution deals with the appointment of ad-hoc judges in high courts. "The chief justice of a high court for any state may at any time, with the previous consent of the president, request any person who has held the office of a judge of that court or of any other high court to sit and act as a judge of the high court for that state," it says.
