【中美创新时报2024 年 12 月 16 日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）胡安·M·默坎法官挫败了唐纳德·J·特朗普在返回白宫前试图洗清 34 项重罪记录的几次尝试之一。《纽约时报》记者Ben Protess 和 Kate Christobek对此作了下述详细报道。
周一，一名法官驳回了唐纳德·J·特朗普的论点，即最近的最高法院裁决使他在纽约的刑事案件无效，维持了这位前任和未来总统因伪造记录掩盖性丑闻而被判重罪的判决。
法官的裁决至少暂时保留了特朗普先生的刑事定罪污点。如果该裁决经得起上诉，特朗普可能成为第一位担任总统的重罪犯。
该裁决针对最高法院授予总统广泛豁免权的决定，仅阻止了特朗普为在返回白宫前洗清 34 项重罪记录而策划的几项法律手段中的第一个。
检察官辩称，最高法院的裁决“与此次起诉无关”，并指出特朗普被判策划了一项涉及其总统任期前个人和政治危机的阴谋。
但特朗普的律师抓住了最高法院裁决中特别有争议的部分，该裁决禁止检察官即使在涉及私人不当行为的案件中也引入涉及总统官方行为的证据。他们辩称，前白宫雇员的证词污染了判决。
在对这一两极化意见的首次重要解读中，负责审判的纽约法官站在检察官一边，认为证词集中在特朗普的非官方行为上。
“人民利用这些行为作为伪造商业记录明显是个人行为的证据，并不构成侵犯行政部门权威和职能的危险，”法官胡安·M·默坎在一份长达 41 页的裁决书中写道。
他补充说，即使证据“被错误地承认，这种错误也是无害的”，并指出审判中引入了“压倒性的有罪证据”。
特朗普的发言人张志强批评了这项裁决，称其“直接违反了最高法院关于豁免权的决定”。
“这个不法的案件根本就不应该提起，宪法要求立即驳回它，”张先生说。
地方检察官阿尔文·L·布拉格的发言人拒绝置评。
默坎法官不会对豁免权问题拥有最终决定权，特朗普现在可以对他的裁决提出上诉。
即使特朗普在纽约上诉法院败诉，他最终也可以将此事提交一个更友好的法庭：最高法院，最高法院对总统权力持广泛看法，保守派以 6 比 3 的多数席位占据多数席位，其中包括他在第一个任期内任命的三名法官。
豁免权问题并不是特朗普解除纽约定罪的唯一途径。他还试图利用选举胜利来驳回此案，理由是 1963 年的一项法律强调了顺利过渡总统职位的重要性，以及司法部的一项长期政策，即现任总统不能面临联邦刑事起诉。
尽管纽约的案件是由州检察官提起的，并且已经定罪，但特朗普的律师辩称，继续审理此案将“对特朗普总统的执政能力构成违宪障碍”。
起诉特朗普的曼哈顿地区检察官办公室反对任何推翻陪审团裁决的行为，称这相当于“极端补救”。
相反，检察官表示愿意在特朗普任职期间冻结案件四年，此举将无限期推迟对他的判刑。
检察官在最近的一份法庭文件中写道：“这种有时间限制的安排比被告要求的全面救济要合适得多，全面救济将使本案的起诉书和陪审团裁决无效，并免除他对同行陪审团认定他犯下的罪行的责任，这些罪行有充分证据证明他犯下了罪行。”
默坎法官可能最早于本周就特朗普因选举相关原因被解雇一事作出裁决，他已经多次暂停了判决。法律专家表示，特朗普将面临最高四年的监禁，但他在纽约的监禁时间不太可能超过几周或几个月。
特朗普在任期间不能入狱，法官可以选择推迟判刑，直到任期结束后。如果默坎法官决定现在处理此事，他可以选择维持原判，但不判处监禁或任何其他惩罚。
如果特朗普在唯一一桩刑事案件中设法避免受到任何惩罚，从而进入审判程序，那么这将是今年早些时候特朗普面临四个不同司法管辖区四项起诉的一次惊人转变。
提起其中两起案件的联邦特别检察官（一起在华盛顿特区，另一起在佛罗里达州）最近关闭了这两起案件，以遵守司法部禁止联邦起诉现任总统的政策。
在佐治亚州，一名当地检察官指控特朗普试图颠覆该州 2020 年的选举结果，特朗普已经成功无限期推迟了此案。
最高法院的豁免决定源于特别检察官在华盛顿的案件，特朗普被指控密谋推翻他在 2020 年大选中的败选结果。
这项以 6 比 3 票数做出的裁决是按照党派立场做出的，裁决认为前总统“有权享有至少推定的免于起诉的豁免权，以免受所有官方行为的起诉”。
在裁决公布后的几个小时内，特朗普的律师试图将其与曼哈顿案件联系起来，称该裁决使定罪无效。
乍一看，两者似乎毫无关联。
5 月，由 12 名纽约人组成的陪审团裁定特朗普犯有 34 项伪造商业记录的罪名，这些罪名与掩盖一名色情明星与他发生性关系的记录有关，这威胁到他 2016 年的总统竞选。
为了掩盖这一事件，特朗普的前调解人迈克尔·科恩 (Michael D. Cohen) 与色情明星斯托米·丹尼尔斯 (Stormy Daniels) 达成了一项 13 万美元的封口费协议。特朗普最终偿还了科恩，科恩作证说，他的前任老板策划了一项伪造记录并隐瞒报销真实目的的计划。
特朗普的律师辩称，鉴于最高法院的豁免裁决，检察官不正当地依赖了涉及他在白宫第一任期内“官方通讯”的证据，包括他担任总统期间发布的推文。
但检察官指出，其中许多声明都是公开的，最高法院明确将公共信息排除在禁止使用官方行为作为证据的范围之外。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨 (John Roberts) 代表多数派得出结论，“检察官可以引用公共记录”来说明论点，即使其中涉及官方行为。
在周一的裁决中，默钱法官驳回了辩方将推文描绘成官方行为的努力，结论是它们“不构成最高法院打算保护的行为类型”。
默钱法官写道：“如果做出相反的裁决，实际上就意味着现任总统曾经发表过的每一份声明（或在社交媒体上发布的声明），无论是个人的还是官方的，无论是出于个人利益还是国家利益，都将受到绝对豁免权的保护。”
尽管如此，特朗普提出了一个更为强硬的论点，即最高法院的裁决现在禁止在审判中提供的一些证词。他的律师引用了特朗普两位前白宫雇员的证词，即他的通讯主管霍普·希克斯和椭圆形办公室运营总监玛德琳·韦斯特豪特。
在证词的一个重要部分，希克斯女士向陪审团讲述了在丹尼尔斯女士的封口费交易曝光后，她与特朗普在白宫进行的一次讨论。希克斯女士说，在《华尔街日报》报道这一事件后，她与特朗普先生讨论了“如何回应”。
然而，检察官辩称，希克斯女士和特朗普先生之间的讨论“仅涉及非官方行为”关于性丑闻。检察官援引最高法院的裁决来支持他们的事业，指出罗伯茨法官曾写道，总统可以“以非官方身份”发言，并且总统采取的并非每项行动都是官方的，而梅尔坎法官在周一的裁决中强调了这一裁定。
检察官还辩称，即使希克斯的证词在某种程度上越界了，他们也提供了许多其他证据，因此“任何错误都是无害的”，有罪判决应该成立。默坎法官同意这一观点，并列举了检察官在审判中提出的一系列其他证据，包括科恩的证词和特朗普自己在其著作中所说的话。
这位法官指出，他并不是唯一一个认为特朗普的行为是私人行为而非官方行为的人。
去年，当特朗普试图将案件移出州法院时，一位联邦法官评估了此案，他得出结论：“证据压倒性地表明，此事纯粹是总统的私人事务。”
联邦法官阿尔文·K·赫勒斯坦在他的意见中指出，“支付给成人电影明星的封口费与总统的官方行为无关。”
题图：唐纳德·J·特朗普在法庭外做手势。当选总统唐纳德·J·特朗普曾辩称，最高法院决定给予总统广泛的官方行动豁免权，这应该使他在纽约的刑事案件无效。图片来源：Jefferson Siegel 为《纽约时报》撰稿
附原英文报道：
Judge Denies Trump’s Bid to Throw Out Conviction Over Immunity Ruling
Justice Juan M. Merchan thwarted one of several attempts by Donald J. Trump to clear his record of 34 felonies before returning to the White House.
Donald J. Trump gestures outside a courtroom.
President-elect Donald J. Trump had argued that the Supreme Court’s decision to grant presidents broad immunity for official actions should nullify his criminal case in New York.Credit…Jefferson Siegel for The New York Times
By Ben Protess and Kate Christobek
Dec. 16, 2024
A judge on Monday rejected Donald J. Trump’s argument that a recent Supreme Court ruling had nullified his criminal case in New York, upholding the former and future president’s felony conviction for falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal.
The judge’s ruling preserves, at least for now, the stain of Mr. Trump’s criminal conviction. And if the decision withstands an appeal, Mr. Trump could become the first felon to serve as president.
The ruling, which addressed the Supreme Court’s decision to grant presidents broad immunity for their official actions, thwarted only the first of several legal maneuvers Mr. Trump has concocted to clear his record of 34 felonies before returning to the White House.
Prosecutors had argued that the Supreme Court’s decision had “no bearing on this prosecution,” noting that Mr. Trump was convicted of orchestrating a scheme involving a personal and political crisis that predated his presidency.
But Mr. Trump’s lawyers seized on a particularly contentious portion of the high court’s ruling, which prohibited prosecutors from introducing evidence involving a president’s official acts even in a case about private misconduct. They argued that testimony from former White House employees had contaminated the verdict.
In the first significant interpretation of that polarizing opinion, the New York judge who oversaw the trial sided with prosecutors, concluding that the testimony centered on Mr. Trump’s unofficial conduct.
“The People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the executive branch,” the judge, Juan M. Merchan, wrote in a 41-page decision.
And even if the evidence was “admitted in error, such error was harmless,” he added, noting the “overwhelming evidence of guilt” introduced at trial.
A spokesman for Mr. Trump, Steven Cheung, criticized the ruling, calling it “a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s decision on immunity.”
“This lawless case should have never been brought, and the Constitution demands that it be immediately dismissed,” Mr. Cheung said.
A spokeswoman for the district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, declined to comment.
Justice Merchan will not have the final say on the immunity issue, and Mr. Trump can now appeal his ruling.
Even if Mr. Trump loses in New York’s appellate courts, he can ultimately take the matter to a friendlier venue: the Supreme Court, which has adopted an expansive view of presidential power and where the 6-to-3 conservative majority includes three justices he appointed during his first term.
And the matter of immunity is hardly Mr. Trump’s only path to unwinding his New York conviction. He has also sought to leverage his electoral victory to throw out the case, citing a 1963 law that enshrined the importance of a smooth transition into the presidency, and a longstanding Justice Department policy that states a sitting president cannot face federal criminal prosecution.
Even though the New York case was brought by state prosecutors and has already resulted in a conviction, Mr. Trump’s lawyers have argued that keeping it alive would impose “unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern.”
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted Mr. Trump, has opposed any effort to overturn the jury’s verdict, saying that would amount to an “extreme remedy.”
Instead, the prosecutors have signaled a willingness to freeze the case for four years while Mr. Trump holds office, a move that would indefinitely postpone his sentencing.
“This type of time-limited accommodation is far more appropriate than the sweeping relief that defendant requests here, which would render the indictment and jury verdict in this case a nullity and eliminate his accountability for the crimes that a jury of his peers found he committed by proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” the prosecutors wrote in a recent court filing.
Justice Merchan, who could rule as soon as this week on Mr. Trump’s election-related dismissal bid, has already paused the sentencing several times. Mr. Trump faces up to four years in prison, but he is unlikely to receive more than a few weeks or months behind bars in New York, according to legal experts.
Mr. Trump cannot be sent to jail while he is president, and the judge can choose to hold off on sentencing him until after his term ends. If Justice Merchan decides instead to address the matter now, he could choose to uphold the conviction but impose no jail time or any other punishment.
If Mr. Trump manages to avoid all punishment whatsoever in his only criminal case to make it to trial, it would complete a stunning turnabout from earlier this year, when he faced four indictments in four different jurisdictions.
The federal special counsel who brought two of those cases, one in Washington, D.C., and the other in Florida, recently shut down both of them, bowing to the Justice Department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents federally.
In Georgia, where a local prosecutor accused Mr. Trump of trying to subvert the state’s 2020 election results, Mr. Trump has already managed to delay the case indefinitely.
The Supreme Court’s immunity decision stems from the special counsel’s case in Washington, where Mr. Trump is accused of plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss.
The 6-to-3 ruling, which was decided along partisan lines, held that a former president was “entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
Within hours of the decision’s landing, Mr. Trump’s lawyers sought to link it to the Manhattan case, arguing that it invalidated the conviction.
At first blush, the two seem unrelated.
In May, a jury of 12 New Yorkers found Mr. Trump guilty of all 34 counts of falsifying business records related to covering up a porn star’s account of a sexual encounter with him, which threatened to derail his 2016 presidential campaign.
To bury the story, Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer, brokered a $130,000 hush-money deal with the porn star, Stormy Daniels. Mr. Trump eventually repaid Mr. Cohen, who testified that his former boss orchestrated a scheme to falsify records and hide the true purpose of the reimbursement.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that, in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, prosecutors had improperly relied on evidence that involved “official communications” during his first term in the White House, including tweets he posted as president.
But many of those statements were public, the prosecutors noted, and the Supreme Court specifically exempted public information from the prohibition on using official acts as evidence.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that a “prosecutor may point to the public record” to illustrate an argument, even if it involves official acts.
In his ruling on Monday, Justice Merchan rejected the defense’s effort to portray the tweets as official acts, concluding that they “do not constitute the type of conduct” the Supreme Court intended to protect.
“To find otherwise would effectively mean that every statement ever uttered (or posted on social media) by a sitting president, whether personal or official, in his or her own interests or that of the country, would be protected by absolute immunity,” Justice Merchan wrote.
Still, Mr. Trump mounted a somewhat stronger argument that the Supreme Court’s ruling now prohibits some of the testimony that was given at trial. His lawyers cited the testimony of two of Mr. Trump’s former White House employees, his communications director Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, a director of Oval Office operations.
In one crucial portion of her testimony, Ms. Hicks told the jury about a discussion she had with Mr. Trump in the White House after the hush-money deal with Ms. Daniels had come to light. Ms. Hicks said that after The Wall Street Journal broke the story, she spoke with Mr. Trump about “how to respond.”
Yet prosecutors argued that the discussions between Ms. Hicks and Mr. Trump “related solely to unofficial conduct” about the sex scandal. The prosecutors invoked the Supreme Court ruling to help their cause, noting that Justice Roberts had written that a president can speak “in an unofficial capacity,” and that not every act a president takes is official, a holding that Justice Merchan highlighted in his ruling on Monday.
The prosecutors also argued that even if Ms. Hicks’s testimony had somehow crossed a line, they had presented so much other evidence that “any error was harmless” and the guilty verdict should stand. Justice Merchan agreed, citing an array of other evidence that prosecutors introduced at trial, including Mr. Cohen’s testimony and Mr. Trump’s own words in books he wrote.
The judge noted that he was not alone in concluding that Mr. Trump’s actions had been private, not official.
A federal judge who evaluated the case last year when Mr. Trump tried to move it out of state court concluded that the “evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was a purely personal item of the president.”
The federal judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein, noted in his opinion that “hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a president’s official acts.”
