Alvin Bragg Took Advantage of Supreme Court to Make His Voice Heard, Legal Analyst Says

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg got a break from the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, according to legal analyst Andrew Weissman.

In a case brought by Bragg, a New York jury found former President Donald Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels by Trump’s then-lawyer Michael Cohen shortly before the 2016 presidential election. Trump has 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” performed in office, in a decision related to the 2020 federal election obstruction case involving the Republican.

The decision comes after months of delay, with the justices agreeing to hear Trump’s request for presidential immunity in late February and oral arguments taking place in late April.

On Wednesday, Weissman, a New York University law professor and former FBI legal adviser, took to X, formerly Twitter, to discuss the immunity decision, adding that one “benefit” of the delay in the decision was that the Manhattan jury in the Bragg case had been able to hear “all the relevant evidence” before the ruling protected Trump.

Newsweek contacted Bragg’s office by email for comment.

“The Supreme Court’s delay in ruling on immunity had one upside: It prevented the Manhattan prosecutors’ case from being unduly truncated by the Court’s ruling that official conduct that is protected by immunity cannot even be presented at trial. The Manhattan jury thus got to hear all the relevant evidence, before the Court’s ridiculous decision protecting Trump.”

Trump’s criminal trial for the silence he received began on April 15 with jury selection and the trial ended on May 30.

During the trial, jurors heard from witnesses while prosecutors presented evidence in the case.

Weissman’s comments come after Trump’s lawyers asked Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, to overturn Trump’s conviction, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling, according to a letter obtained by The Associated Press and The New York Times.

Additionally, they asked Merchan to delay Trump’s sentencing while he considers the court’s decision and its impact on the New York case, according to the AP.

After Bragg’s office said in a filed letter that it would be open to a postponement of sentencing, Merchan agreed Tuesday to move the former president’s sentencing date from July 11 to Sept. 18.

Meanwhile, in the midst of the 2024 election, Mark Shanahan, an associate professor and expert in American politics at the University of Surrey in the United Kingdom, previously said: Newsweek It is “not surprising” that Trump’s hush-money order has been postponed until September following the Supreme Court ruling, adding that it could further harm Trump as he seeks re-election.

“Everyone was surprised by the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, and all sides are scrambling to figure out whether and how it applies to the New York verdicts. If the case is dismissed, or more likely, if the verdict is further delayed, it will galvanize Democrats like no other cause with a likely ripple effect on the few swing voters in the half-dozen states that will decide this election,” Shanahan said.