NEW: Here is the Trump team's pre-motion letter on why, in their view, the Supreme Court's immunity decision means Judge Merchan should set aside the NY verdict (via Frank G. Runyeon, Law360) s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24...
I'm going to repost Frank Runyeon's helpful analysis of the aspects of the testimony that the Trump team is challenging:
- Hope Hicks' testimony
- Tweets
- Ethics filing
- Call records
HICKS'S TESTIMONY: ADA Steinglass called testimony by Trump's fmr White House aide Hope Hicks "devastating," defense notes.
But, per Trump, that should never have been introduced at trial, presumably because the conversation was between the president and his staffer. (via Frank G. Runyeon, Law360)
TWEETS: Defense counsel said these tweets also should never have been shown to the jury, because they were official communications to the public during his first term in the White House. (via Frank G. Runyeon, Law360)
ETHICS FILING: Trump's @OfficeGovEthics form was also an "official act" that the DA shouldn't have been able to rely on as evidence, defense argues. (via Frank G. Runyeon, Law360)
TRUE: The Supreme Court's immunity decision is unlikely to unsettle the NY verdict
TRUE: Trump's charged conduct consisted of *unofficial* acts
FALSE: Trump's charged conduct took place before his presidency (he was mostly charged for reimbursements to Michael Cohen made while he was president)
One thing I'm genuinely unclear on is how NY state appellate courts will treat SCOTUS' discussion about the admissibility of "official acts" evidence in a criminal prosecution. That particular section of the decision wasn't grounded in a Constitutional principle applicable to states, and New York...
...doesn't follow the federal rules of evidence (New York famously has no formal rules of evidence). I'm unclear on what preemptive effect the evidentiary holding, as opposed to the immunity holding, has on state courts.
