BY Rosemary
A federal judge indicated Wednesday that he is likely to again reject President Donald Trump’s effort to erase his hush money conviction, sharply criticizing his legal team for what he described as an improper attempt to relitigate issues they could have raised earlier.
U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, acting under instructions from a federal appeals court to take a fresh look at the case, subjected Trump’s lawyers to pointed questioning during nearly three hours of arguments in Manhattan federal court. Trump is seeking to transfer his New York criminal case from state court to federal court, a move that would allow him to argue that the conviction should be thrown out on the grounds of presidential immunity.
Throughout the hearing, Hellerstein suggested the effort may be too late to succeed, repeatedly noting that Trump’s lawyers waited months after the May 2024 verdict before asking the federal court to intervene. The judge said he would issue a written ruling at a later date.
At the center of the dispute is whether Trump’s conviction can be undone in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued about a month after the verdict, which held that presidents and former presidents cannot be criminally prosecuted for official acts taken while in office. Hellerstein acknowledged that the high court’s decision raised novel legal questions that courts had not previously confronted, but he emphasized that the ruling also made clear that presidents are not above the law.
Hellerstein clashed repeatedly with Trump attorney Jeffrey Wall, questioning the strategic choices made by Trump’s legal team after the Supreme Court decision. The judge said the lawyers could have immediately sought to move the case into federal court, which would have halted sentencing, but instead chose to first ask the state trial judge to overturn the verdict.
“I think I have to quarrel with you a bit,” Hellerstein told Wall early in the hearing, disputing the defense’s timeline and legal reasoning.
Wall argued that Trump’s lawyers were under intense time pressure following the Supreme Court’s July 1, 2024, ruling because Trump’s sentencing in state court was scheduled just 10 days later. He said that had they immediately sought to move the case to federal court, prosecutors might have accused them of acting prematurely.
The judge was unpersuaded. He described the delay as a strategic decision and suggested it cost Trump the opportunity to pursue federal relief. “You didn’t have to do that,” Hellerstein said. “You could have come right to the federal court. Just by filing a notice of removal, there would be no sentencing.”
By choosing to proceed first in state court and only later turning to federal court, Hellerstein said, Trump’s lawyers were seeking “two bites at the apple.”
Wall pushed back, saying the approach taken was reasonable under the circumstances. “It is what any sensible litigant would do,” he said.
“Not so,” Hellerstein replied.
Steven Wu, a lawyer for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, echoed the judge’s concerns. Wu argued that the defense’s own arguments showed the delay was deliberate and that longstanding legal principles bar defendants from testing their luck in state court before seeking relief in federal court if the outcome is unfavorable.
“You cannot go to state court and when you’re unhappy, then go to federal court,” Wu said.
Trump, a Republican, did not attend the hearing. At its conclusion, Hellerstein thanked both sides for what he described as provocative arguments.
Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors said the payment was intended to silence Daniels about an alleged affair with Trump in the closing days of the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has denied the affair and wrongdoing.
He was later sentenced to an unconditional discharge, which left the conviction in place but imposed no jail time, fines or probation. Trump has appealed the conviction in state court and continues to argue that the case was politically motivated.
Hellerstein has previously denied Trump’s efforts to move the case into federal court, first after Trump’s indictment in March 2023 and again after the verdict. In his earlier rulings, the judge said Trump failed to meet the high legal standard required to change jurisdiction and found that the conduct at issue involved Trump’s personal affairs, not official presidential acts protected by immunity.
In November, however, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Hellerstein to reconsider his post-verdict decision. A three-judge panel said the judge had not fully addressed certain issues raised by Trump, including whether evidence introduced at trial involved official acts that could be shielded by immunity. The appeals court expressed no opinion on how Hellerstein should ultimately rule.
The appellate judges instructed Hellerstein to closely examine the evidence Trump claims relates to official presidential duties. If such evidence was used, the court said, Hellerstein should consider whether Trump acted as part of his White House role, whether he diligently sought to move the case to federal court, and whether a case can even be transferred after a conviction and sentence have already been imposed.
As Wednesday’s hearing made clear, those questions remain unresolved. But Hellerstein’s sharp skepticism toward Trump’s legal strategy suggests the former president faces an uphill battle in his latest attempt to undo a conviction that continues to follow him into his second term in the White House.
Original article
Comments