Expert: SCOTUS Immunity Decision Could Impact Evidence Used In Alvin Bragg’s Case

A former Justice Department official said on Tuesday that the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity could impact Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s business documents case against former President Donald Trump.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump’s claims of immunity over “official acts” as president in a case stemming from an indictment secured by special counsel Jack Smith over the former president’s efforts to contest the 2020 election in a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams told “CNN This Morning” host Kasie Hunt that some of the evidence introduced in the trial, including the testimony of former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, might be in question.

WATCH:

“Let’s talk about what the Supreme Court decided,” Williams said. “What they‘d said was that evidence of official acts cannot even be used to help support prosecuting someone for unofficial acts of the presidency. So case in point, let’s use Donald Trump’s New York trial. Obviously it‘s personal conduct, private behavior, sleeping with porn stars, cooking the books of your corporation, whatever else, right however, it relied on the testimony of Hope Hicks, a former White House aide, and other evidence that is tied to his time in the White House. Now, Trump’s team can plausibly claim some of these were official acts that can’t even be used as evidence.”

Bragg’s team called Hicks to testify about the Trump campaign’s response to the 2016 tape of a conversation between Trump and “Access Hollywood” host Billy Bush. A Manhattan jury of seven men and five women convicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsification of business records on May 30.

“It‘s no surprise, we talked about it on air yesterday, that Trump‘s team would move to upend the New York case,” Williams said. “Now this whole idea of calling a new trial is sort of silly. I think what they can just do is let the appeal play out and have them raise that issue on appeal, but yes, it‘s going to change some aspect of the New York trial.”