Prosecutors Willing To End Trump’s Hush Money Case But Want Conviction Upheld

The central premise of the argument from prosecutors is that Trump’s status as the President-elect does not shield him from the legal consequences of the felony convictions.

Prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office argued in court documents revealed on Dec. 10 that although they were willing to end President-elect Donald Trump’s hush money case, they were not willing to come to a resolution that involved throwing out his conviction.

According to The Associated Press, the office presented Judge Juan M. Merchan with a list of options that would serve to keep Trump’s conviction on the record, including one that asked him to give Trump the same legal treatment that he would if he had died.

Essentially, this option would freeze the case, allowing the conviction to remain, but no appeals could be made; however, it is not yet clear if this option is permitted by New York state law.

According to the court filing, “As applied here, this Court could similarly terminate the criminal proceeding by placing a notation in the record that the jury verdict removed the presumption of innocence; that defendant was never sentenced; and that his conviction was neither affirmed nor reversed on appeal because of presidential immunity.”

The central premise of the argument from prosecutors is that Trump’s status as the President-elect does not shield him from the legal consequences of the felony convictions. Meanwhile, Trump’s lawyers have argued that his election provides a reason to dismiss the case altogether.

“This Court should reject [Trump’s] motion to ‘immediately’ dismiss the indictment and vacate the jury’s guilty verdict based on the outcome of the recent presidential election,” prosecutors for the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg wrote. “There are no grounds for such relief now, prior to the defendant’s inauguration, because President-elect immunity does not exist.”

In their arguments, Trump’s legal team also cited President Joe Biden’s recent pardon of Hunter Biden.

Biden had argued, as Trump’s lawyers have, that his son was unfairly prosecuted for political purposes.

Judge Merchan’s ruling date is unknown, but Trump will take the Oval Office again on Jan. 20.

Trump was initially scheduled to be sentenced at the end of November, but his election defeat of Vice President Kamala Harris caused Merchan to postpone his sentencing indefinitely so that both teams of lawyers could present their arguments on how to proceed.

A dismissal would invalidate Trump’s historic conviction and spare him a potential prison sentence.

The conviction and subsequent election of Trump made him both the first former president to be convicted of a crime and the first criminal to be elected president.

Judge Merchan could potentially choose to delay the trial until Trump’s term in office is up and wait to see what happens with a federal appeals court case, which Trump’s lawyers are pursuing to move out of the jurisdiction of New York state court. Alternatively, Merchan could do something else entirely.

According to CBS News, prosecutors, as made clear in the filing, do not want Trump’s alleged presidential immunity to extend to his current capacity as the president-elect.

“[Trump’s] suggestion that his subsequent election ‘superseded’ the jury’s verdict is deeply misguided,” prosecutors said in the filing. “As this Court carefully and correctly instructed the jury, it was the empaneled jurors who were ‘deciding whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty’ because only these jurors — not the general electorate — heard all the evidence in this trial.”

They continued, arguing that the case is unique and a novel remedy should not be allowed as a resolution to the case.

“Especially given the novelty of the defendant’s own immunity claims, it would hardly be improper for this Court to exercise its inherent authority to consider novel remedies such as adopting a version of the Alabama rule in the context of this unique case.”

Trump entered a not-guilty plea and promised to appeal the conviction when afforded an opportunity.

His other open case, the election interference case being prosecuted by Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis’ office, is currently in limbo.