President-elect Donald Trump faced a significant legal battle when a New York judge ruled on Monday, Dec. 16, that his felony conviction would stand for now. This ruling came in the wake of the Supreme Court's sweeping presidential immunity ruling in July, which called into question Trump's guilty verdict on 34 felonies. His lawyers argued that some of the evidence shown to jurors would no longer be permitted as it involved his official actions as president.

Prosecutors vs. Trump's Legal Team

Prosecutors asserted that the evidence in question was just a "sliver of the mountains" of proof in their case and would not have impacted jurors' ultimate conclusion. During the trial in the spring, which lasted for six-plus weeks, prosecutors painted a portrait of a former reality TV star who unlawfully tilted the 2016 presidential election in his favor by conspiring with powerful friends to suppress information from voters. Jurors were presented with a wealth of hard evidence and exhaustive witness testimony to support the charges. On May 30, a jury of seven men and five women unanimously sided with the prosecution, finding Trump guilty of falsifying 34 business records to conceal a plot to influence the election. This made him the first US president in history to be found guilty of crimes.During the trial, prosecutors introduced testimony from a couple of White House aides who worked with Trump. They also showed jurors a 2018 presidential financial disclosure form. This evidence was not controversial at the time, but a Supreme Court ruling one month after the verdict gave Trump's legal team a basis for arguing that the trial had been corrupted.On July 1, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump is immune from being charged for "official" presidential acts. The ruling clarified that he can still be prosecuted for "unofficial" actions he took as a private citizen or anything he did before and after his presidential term, as long as his official White House conduct is excluded from evidence.The immunity ruling did not automatically overturn Trump's New York conviction as the case focused on his actions as a presidential candidate and his personal finances during his first year in office, not on how he wielded the power of the presidency. However, it did force Judge Juan M. Merchan to reassess whether the way jurors reached their verdict violated the Supreme Court's new guidelines.Merchan's conclusion closely echoed the argument that prosecutors made against tossing Trump's conviction, saying that even if evidence of his official acts as president was introduced at trial, "such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt." Further, Merchan suggested that using evidence related to Trump's official presidential conduct "poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch" in this case, as it centers around "the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records."Though Judge Merchan oversaw the trial, he will not have the final say on whether Trump's conviction stands. Trump has the option to appeal Merchan's decision, and if an appellate court does not give him the answer he wants, he can take the matter to the Supreme Court, which has a conservative supermajority. Trump also has another card up his sleeve in his quest to dismiss the case. Similar to how Merchan was asked to decide whether presidential immunity nullifies Trump's guilty verdict, the defense has also asked him to toss the conviction on other grounds: that Trump's recent election as president poses an insurmountable "legal impediment" to further criminal proceedings.