From Law & Crime · · 3m
Manhattan DA's Office Says Hush-Money Trial Error Would Be 'Harmless'
Manhattan DA claims Trump's hush-money case had 'harmless error' even if presidential immunity was violated.
In brief
Manhattan DA claims Trump's hush-money case had 'harmless error' even if presidential immunity was violated. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office argues that even if Trump's hush-money trial used illegal evidence, the error would be 'harmless' due to overwhelming guilt. Originally reported by Law & Crime.
Manhattan DA's Office
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office argues that even if certain evidence shouldn't have been used at trial, it was a 'harmless error'.
“harmless error”
Trump's Legal Team
Attorney Robert Giuffra argued the prosecution was 'infected by multiple fatal errors under New York and federal law'.
“infected by multiple fatal errors”
FECA Use in Trial
Prosecutors relied on Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to 'bump up' misdemeanor charges to felonies.
“bump up”
FECA Legal Challenge
Law professor Jed Shugerman argued Congress intended FECA to preempt all state-level election regulation, making Manhattan prosecutors' reliance void.
“preempt all state-level election regulation”
Jury Instructions
Trump's legal team argued jury instructions violated Sixth Amendment jury-unanimity rights by allowing conviction without unanimous agreement on 'unlawful means'.
“unlawful means”
Presidential Immunity
The Supreme Court's Trump v. United States ruling addressed whether evidence like communications with aide Hope Hicks could be used at trial.
“trump v united states”
Harmless Error Defense
Manhattan prosecutors argued that even if evidence was improperly admitted, the 'overwhelming evidence' of Trump's guilt makes any error harmless.
“overwhelming evidence”
FECA Scope
Manhattan prosecutors' chief Steven Wu stated FECA's scope was 'extremely narrow' in this case and did not 'bump up' the charges.
“extremely narrow”
Presidential Immunity Application
Prosecutors argued that immunity does not attach to evidence used to evaluate David Pecker and Michael Cohen's credibility.
“evaluate credibility”
Key Legal Argument
Manhattan DA's office claims the hush-money payments were 'fraudulent transfers' meant to avoid publicity before the 2016 election.
“fraudulent transfers”
Trial Outcome
The Manhattan DA's office maintained that the trial's use of FECA and other evidence was 'harmless error' even if presidential immunity was violated.
“harmless error”
Legal Team Focus
Trump's legal team focused heavily on jury instructions, arguing it was unconstitutional to convict without unanimous agreement on 'unlawful means'.
“unlawful means”
FECA Expert Barred
The trial court barred Trump's FECA expert from testifying, a point Trump's legal team highlighted as a critical error.
“barred”
Appeal Status
The case is currently under appeal with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, First Department.
“new york supreme court appellate division”
Presidential Immunity Ruling
The Supreme Court's Trump v. United States ruling was decided roughly one month after the hush-money verdict in 2024.
“trump v united states”
Harmless Error Conclusion
Manhattan prosecutors argued that any error in admitting evidence would be 'harmless' due to the overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt.
“harmless”
What it means
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg's office argues that even if Trump's hush-money trial used illegal evidence, the error would be 'harmless' due to overwhelming guilt.
/file/attachments/orphans/hf_20261106_102224_f2ddadba-0a04-45b1-95b1-544bc7c2af0f_min_429924.png)
