NEW YORK (AP) 鈥� Prosecutors are urging a judge to uphold Donald Trump鈥檚 historic , arguing in court papers made public Thursday that the verdict should stand despite the Supreme Court鈥檚 recent .
The Manhattan district attorney鈥檚 office said in a court filing that the high court鈥檚 opinion 鈥渉as no bearing鈥� on the hush money case because it involves unofficial acts for which a former president is not immune.
鈥淭here is no basis for disturbing the jury鈥檚 verdict,鈥� prosecutors wrote in a 66-page filing.
Lawyers for the Republican presidential nominee are because of the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision July 1. The ruling insulates former presidents from being criminally prosecuted for official acts and bars prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a commander in chief鈥檚 unofficial actions were illegal.
That decision came about a month after a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records to conceal a deal to pay off porn actor Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. At the time, she was considering going public with a story of a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump, who says no such thing happened. He has denied any wrongdoing.
Trump was a private citizen when his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, paid Daniels. But Trump was president when Cohen was reimbursed. Prosecutors say those repayments were misleadingly logged simply as legal expenses in Trump鈥檚 company records. Cohen testified that he and Trump discussed the repayment arrangement in the Oval Office.
Trump鈥檚 lawyers instead of waiting for the Supreme Court鈥檚 view on presidential immunity, and that the trial was 鈥渢ainted鈥� by evidence that should not have been allowed under the high court鈥檚 ruling.
Judge Juan M. Merchan plans to rule Sept. 6 on the Trump lawyers鈥� request. The judge has set Trump鈥檚 sentencing for Sept. 18, 鈥渋f such is still necessary鈥� after he reaches his conclusions about immunity.
The sentencing, which carries the potential for anything from probation to up to four years in prison, initially was set for mid-July. But within hours of the Supreme Court鈥檚 ruling, Trump鈥檚 team . Merchan soon to consider their immunity arguments.
Under the Supreme Court's decision, lower courts are largely the ones that will have to figure out what constitutes an official act.
Indeed, even the conservative justices responsible for the majority opinion differed about what is proper for jurors to hear about a president鈥檚 conduct.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the Constitution does not require juries to be blinded 鈥渢o the circumstances surrounding conduct for which presidents can be held liable鈥� and suggested that it would needlessly 鈥渉amstring鈥� a prosecutor鈥檚 case to prohibit any mention of an official act in question.
Before the Supreme Court ruling, Trump鈥檚 lawyers brought up presidential immunity in a from state court to federal court.
Later, they tried to hold off the hush money trial until the Supreme Court ruled on his immunity claim, which arose from a separate prosecution 鈥� the Washington-based federal criminal case surrounding Trump's .
Trump鈥檚 lawyers never raised presidential immunity as a defense in the hush money trial, but they tried unsuccessfully to prevent prosecutors from showing the jury evidence from his time in office.
Michael R. Sisak And Jennifer Peltz, The Associated Press
