After the US election: immunity for Trump? Decision expected in process

A week after Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, a decision on the Republican’s possible immunity in the hush money trial is expected today in New York. At the beginning of September, Judge Juan Merchan set the date for this decision for November 12th.

If he were to grant the 78-year-old’s defense request, the guilty verdict against Trump in May would probably have been overturned. However, if the judge were to reject the application, the question would remain as to whether the announcement of the sentence, currently planned for the end of November, would remain as it is.

Convicted felon as US President

Jurors in New York found Trump guilty on 34 counts at the end of May. The trial concerned the illegal concealment of hush money payments to a porn actress in order to gain advantages in the 2016 presidential election campaign. It was the first time in United States history that a former president was convicted of a crime. Last week, Trump was elected US President as a convicted felon – a first in the country’s history.

The sentence was originally supposed to be announced in mid-September. But then Judge Merchan granted Trump’s request that the punishment not be announced until after the presidential election. Theoretically, in the worst case scenario, the Republican could face a prison sentence of several years. Before the election, however, many observers considered a suspended sentence to be much more likely. There has also never been a sentencing announcement for a president-elect in the history of the United States.

Landmark ruling of the Supreme Court as leverage

Trump’s defense had already tried every means possible during the trial to hinder and stop the proceedings altogether. The US President-elect’s lawyers then came across a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court: At the beginning of July, the US Supreme Court, with its right-wing conservative majority of judges, decided that Trump enjoyed immunity for certain official acts.

The New York hush money case itself is different because it primarily revolves around Trump’s actions as a presidential candidate before the 2016 election. But the Supreme Court ruling also means that official actions of US presidents will not be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. Trump’s lawyers argue that the prosecution in the case also relied on evidence from Trump’s time in the White House.