Legal analyst Andrew Weissman said «one benefit» to the delay immunity ruling was New York Jury got to hear «all the relevant evidence.»
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg caught a break from the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, according to legal analyst Andrew Weissman.
In a case brought by Bragg, a New York jury found former President Donald Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to a hush money payment made to adult film actor Stormy Daniels by Trump’s then-lawyer Michael Cohen shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Trump denied the charges and Daniels’ allegations that the two had an affair. He has vowed to appeal.
However, on Monday the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled that Trump is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his «official acts» carried out in office in a ruling connected to the federal 2020 election obstruction case involving the Republican.
The ruling comes after months of delay with the justices agreeing to hear Trump’s presidential immunity claim in late February and with oral arguments taking place at the end of April.
On Wednesday, Weissman, a New York University law professor and former FBI general counsel, took to X, formerly Twitter, to discuss the immunity ruling, adding that «one benefit» to the delay in the decision was that the Manhattan jury in Bragg’s case was able to hear «all the relevant evidence» before the ruling protected Trump.
