Appeals court revives Trump's effort to remove hush money case to federal court
A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered a lower court to take another look at whether President Donald Trump's criminal hush money prosecution in Manhattan deserved to be heard in federal court.
After Trump was convicted last year on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, he sought to move the case into federal court from state court due to the Supreme Court's landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts.
U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied the request, concluding that Trump failed to show good cause for move after the jury had rendered its verdict.
On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered Hellerstein to revisit his ruling.
"We cannot be confident that in doing so, the District Court adequately considered issues relevant to the good cause inquiry so as to enable meaningful appellate review," the opinion said. For example, the District Court did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed the State's case into one that relates to acts under color of the Presidency."
Trump was found guilty last year of orchestrating an illegal scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election by directing his personal lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen, to pay $130,000 to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to prevent her from publicly discussing a long-denied sexual encounter with Trump, and then falsifying New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct.
New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump's inauguration in January, sentenced him to an unconditional discharge -- the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law -- saying it was the "only lawful sentence" to prevent "encroaching upon the highest office in the land."
Trump is separately appealing his conviction in a New York appellate court, arguing that it was based on evidence the Supreme Court later decided should have been off limits.
