Latest news with #JeffreyWall
BBC News
11-06-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Trump attorneys argue for hush-money appeal to move to federal court
Attorneys for Donald Trump on Wednesday argued that the appeal of his felony conviction in New York should be moved to federal court because the case related to official acts as president, while the state said it was too late to make the was convicted last May of lying in relation to a hush-money payment to adult-film star Stormy Daniels, which he appealed. Then, in July, the US Supreme Court granted the president immunity for official acts. For Trump's legal team, the goal of moving to federal court is for the conviction to be overturned on immunity sides made their case during a one-hour hearing before a three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump's attorney, Jeffrey Wall, argued that the president's appeal belonged in federal court because the Manhattan District Attorney's Office chose to include evidence that they say relates to Trump's official acts as president, including testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks."Everything about this cries out for federal court," Mr Wall told the three-judge panel. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office, meanwhile, argued Trump's legal team took too long to ask for the case to be moved, after his sentencing. "After sentencing, removal is no longer available," said Steven Wu of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. "Even if it were technically available, there are compelling reasons not to permit it."Mr Wu also disagreed with Trump's attorneys that some of the evidence presented in the hush-money trial related to his official acts. He gave an example of a postal worker who robbed someone while not at work, but then chose to confess his crimes in the postal office. The confession in the office, he argued, would not be related to the postal worker's official duties. Trump's crime, Mr Wu argued, "was completed before the White House evidence". During the hearing, the three judges pressed both sides, noting the case was "extraordinary" and "highly unusual". One judge told Mr Wall it would be "quite anomalous" for an appeal to be moved to federal another noted that the Supreme Court in their immunity ruling used "broad" language to describe which evidence is related to "official acts" as president. The panel is expected to issue a written opinion at a later date. Trump's attorneys argued last September to move his New York case to the federal courts, but that request was denied by US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein. The 2nd US Circuit court is now hearing the appeal of that decision. Trump was sentenced in the hush-money case ten days before taking office in January. He was given an unconditional discharge, meaning he received no fines, probation or jail time, but the conviction will stay on his record. Trump was indicted in several criminal state and federal cases before his latest run for office, but the New York case was the only one to go to trial before he won the presidency. Trump's defence lawyers in the New York case, including Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, have since been promoted to positions in the justice department.
New York Times
11-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump Fights to Move Appeal of Hush-Money Conviction to Federal Court
President Trump's fight to overturn his criminal conviction returned to the spotlight on Wednesday, as his legal team clashed with the Manhattan district attorney's office over whether the appeals process should play out in state or federal court. Mr. Trump was convicted last spring of 34 felonies related to his attempts to cover up sex scandals during his 2016 run for the White House. His lawyers have argued several times that the case properly belongs in federal court, rather than the New York State Court in which it was brought, given that evidence in the case involved actions taken during his first presidency. Prosecutors working for the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, have countered that the accusations of which Mr. Trump was eventually found guilty — the falsification of 34 business records to disguise reimbursements for a hush-money payment to a porn star — have nothing to do with the presidency and that Mr. Trump was acting in his capacity as a private citizen. A federal judge who has scrutinized the case, Alvin K. Hellerstein, has agreed with the Manhattan prosecutors. But Mr. Trump's lawyers have appealed Mr. Hellerstein's decision, leading to the arguments on Wednesday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan. There, a lawyer from Mr. Trump's new legal team, Jeffrey B. Wall, argued that the Supreme Court's 2024 decision on presidential immunity — which held that Mr. Trump was immune from prosecution for acts taken in his official presidential capacity — provided a new rationale for moving the criminal case to federal court. Doing so could allow Mr. Trump's lawyers to appear in a more favorable forum for persuading judges to overturn the case — four Supreme Court justice have already indicated that they might be favorable to his point of view. However, Mr. Trump could not pardon himself for the state conviction even if the case was moved to federal court. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNN
11-06-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Federal appeals court wrestles with Trump effort to fight hush money conviction
A federal appeals court in New York wrangled Wednesday with President Donald Trump's claim that his hush money conviction should be reviewed by federal courts and seemed open to the idea that the Supreme Court's landmark immunity decision may weigh in the president's favor. 'It seems to me that we got a very big case that created a whole new world of presidential immunity,' US Circuit Judge Myrna Pérez, who was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, said at one point during oral arguments. 'The boundaries are not clear at this point.' At issue is whether Trump can move his state court case on 34 counts of falsifying business records to federal court, where he hopes to argue that prosecutors violated the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year by using certain evidence against him, including testimony from former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks. 'The scope of a federal constitutional immunity for the president of the United States should be decided by this court and the Supreme Court, not by New York state courts,' said Jeffrey Wall, a former acting US solicitor general who is representing Trump in the case. 'Everything about this cries out for federal court.' The Supreme Court's decision last year granted Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for his official acts and barred prosecutors from attempting to enter evidence about them, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition on evidence, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. And so, the underlying question is whether prosecutors crossed that line by including the testimony from Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout, as well as a series of social media posts Trump authored during his first term criticizing the hush money case. The three-judge panel of the New York-based 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, all appointed by Democratic presidents, asked probing questions of both sides and it wasn't clear after more than an hour of arguments how they would decide the case. The judges pressed the attorney representing Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on why the Supreme Court's decision last year didn't preclude the evidence at issue in the case. 'The Supreme Court used very broad language in talking about evidentiary immunity,' noted Circuit Judge Susan Carney. Bragg's office has countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. That's because Trump was already convicted and sentenced. Prosecutors have also argued that the evidence at issue wasn't the kind the Supreme Court was referring to. Hicks may have been a White House official when she testified, they said, but she was speaking about actions Trump took in a private capacity. 'The fact that we are now past the point of sentencing would be a compelling reason to find no 'good cause' for removal,' said Steven Wu, who was representing Bragg. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. Wu analogized Trump's argument to a postal worker who commits a crime on the weekend and then confesses to his boss at work on Monday. The confession, even though it happened in a post office, doesn't suddenly convert the content of the conversation to an official US Postal Service action. 'The criminal charges were private and unofficial conduct,' Wu said. Trump was ultimately sentenced in January without penalty. He had been accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton, denied Trump's request to move the case to federal court – keeping his appeals instead in New York courts. Trump, who frequently complained about the New York trial court judge in his case, Juan Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.'
CNN
11-06-2025
- Business
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
CNN
11-06-2025
- Business
- CNN
Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump's long-shot effort to fight hush money conviction
Five months after President Donald Trump was sentenced without penalty in the New York hush money case, his attorneys will square off again with prosecutors Wednesday in one of the first major tests of the Supreme Court's landmark presidential immunity decision. Trump is relying heavily on the high court's divisive 6-3 immunity ruling from July in a long-shot bid to get his conviction reviewed – and ultimately overturned – by federal courts. After being convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records, Trump in January became the first felon to ascend to the presidency in US history. Even after Trump was reelected and federal courts became flooded with litigation tied to his second term, the appeals in the hush money case have chugged forward in multiple courts. A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals – all named to the bench by Democratic presidents – will hear arguments Wednesday in one of those cases. Trump will be represented on Wednesday by Jeffrey Wall, a private lawyer and Supreme Court litigator who served as acting solicitor general during Trump's first administration. Many of the lawyers who served on Trump's defense team in the hush money case have since taken top jobs within the Justice Department. The case stems from the 2023 indictment announced by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, who accused Trump of falsely categorizing payments he said were made to quash unflattering stories during the 2016 election. Trump was accused of falsifying a payment to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to cover up a $130,000 payment Cohen made to adult-film star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking out before the 2016 election about an alleged affair with Trump. (Trump has denied the affair.) Trump was ultimately convicted last year and was sentenced without penalty in January, days before he took office. The president is now attempting to move that case to federal court, where he is betting he'll have an easier shot at arguing that the Supreme Court's immunity decision in July will help him overturn the conviction. Trump's earlier attempts to move the case to federal court have been unsuccessful. US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, nominated by President Bill Clinton, denied the request in September – keeping Trump's case in New York courts instead. The 2nd Circuit will now hear arguments on Trump's appeal of that decision on Wednesday. 'He's lost already several times in the state courts,' said David Shapiro, a former prosecutor and now a lecturer at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. And Trump's long-running battle with New York Judge Juan Merchan, Shapiro said, has 'just simmered up through the system' in New York courts in a way that may have convinced Trump that federal courts will be more receptive. Trump, who frequently complained about Merchan, has said he wants his case heard in an 'unbiased federal forum.' Trump's argument hangs largely on a technical but hotly debated section of the Supreme Court's immunity decision last year. Broadly, that decision granted former presidents 'at least presumptive' immunity for official acts and 'absolute immunity' when presidents were exercising their constitutional powers. State prosecutors say the hush money payments were a private matter – not official acts of the president – and so they are not covered by immunity. But the Supreme Court's decision also barred prosecutors from attempting to show a jury evidence concerning a president's official acts, even if they are pursuing alleged crimes involving that president's private conduct. Without that prohibition, the Supreme Court reasoned, a prosecutor could 'eviscerate the immunity' the court recognized by allowing a jury to second-guess a president's official acts. Trump is arguing that is exactly what Bragg did when he called White House officials such as former communications director Hope Hicks and former executive assistant Madeleine Westerhout to testify at his trial. Hicks had testified that Trump felt it would 'have been bad to have that story come out before the election,' which prosecutors later described as the 'nail' in the coffin of the president's defense. Trump's attorneys are also pointing to social media posts the president sent in 2018 denying the Daniels hush money scheme as official statements that should not have been used in the trial. State prosecutors 'introduced into evidence and asked the jury to scrutinize President Trump's official presidential acts,' Trump's attorneys told the appeals court in a filing last month. 'One month after trial, the Supreme Court unequivocally recognized an immunity prohibiting the use of such acts as evidence at any trial of a former president.' A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. If Trump's case is ultimately reviewed by federal courts, that would not change his state law conviction into a federal conviction. Trump would not be able to pardon himself just because a federal court reviews the case. Bragg's office countered that it's too late for federal courts to intervene. Federal officials facing prosecution in state courts may move their cases to federal court in many circumstances under a 19th century law designed to ensure states don't attempt to prosecute them for conduct performed 'under color' of a US office or agency. A federal government worker, for instance, might seek to have a case moved to federal court if they are sued after getting into a car accident while driving on the job. But in this case, Bragg's office argued, Trump has already been convicted and sentenced. That means, prosecutors said, there's really nothing left for federal courts to do. 'Because final judgment has been entered and the state criminal action has concluded, there is nothing to remove to federal district court,' prosecutors told the 2nd Circuit in January. Even if that's not true, they said, seeking testimony from a White House adviser about purely private acts doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's ruling in last year's immunity case. Bragg's office has pointed to a Supreme Court ruling as well: the 5-4 decision in January that allowed Trump to be sentenced in the hush money case. The president raised many of the same concerns about evidence when he attempted to halt that sentencing before the inauguration. A majority of the Supreme Court balked at that argument in a single sentence that, effectively, said Trump could raise those concerns when he appeals his conviction. That appeal remains pending in state court. 'The alleged evidentiary violations at President-elect Trump's state-court trial,' the Supreme Court wrote, 'can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal.'
