Attorneys for Donald Trump have strongly criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s recent suggestion to use an “abatement-by-death” process in the ongoing hush-money case. In a 23-page reply, Trump’s legal team called the proposal an “extremely troubling and irresponsible analogy,” labeling it an effort to fabricate an “unconstitutional” legal scenario. Bragg’s suggestion, presented in a recent filing, proposed that New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan could employ a process known as “abatement by death” to bring finality to the case. This legal process typically occurs when a defendant dies before a conviction is finalized, but Bragg’s office suggested it could be applied to the case, even though Trump is alive, to avoid dismissing the indictment or vacating the jury’s verdict.
Bragg’s office, in its 82-page response, acknowledged that New York does not use this specific form of abatement. However, the district attorney referenced the “Alabama rule,” which allows for a notation in the court record when a defendant dies after being convicted but before an appeal is finalized. According to Bragg, the rule could be adapted to note that Trump’s jury verdict removed the presumption of innocence but was neither affirmed nor reversed on appeal due to the unique circumstances of his case, including presidential immunity.
Trump’s defense team vehemently rejected this argument. They described Bragg’s proposal as an absurd attempt to “pretend” that an assassination attempt on Trump had succeeded. They argued that such a suggestion violated established legal principles and was an attempt to create new law in a way that contradicted binding precedent. The defense team also accused Bragg of desperation to avoid legally mandated dismissal of the case, asserting that his office was trying to fabricate a “dark dream scenario” in order to keep the case alive despite its flaws.
In addition to the abatement-by-death suggestion, Bragg’s office has also floated the idea of keeping the case in limbo until Trump completes his second presidential term in 2029. Bragg proposed that Trump could be sentenced immediately, but any consequences, such as imprisonment or fines, could be delayed until after his term ends. This approach would allow the case to continue without formally resolving it, effectively keeping Trump in a state of legal uncertainty.
Trump’s legal team has rejected this idea as well, calling it the “Zombie Case” and arguing that it should not be allowed to persist indefinitely. They maintain that the case involves allegations dating back years, and that it should not be kept in legal limbo due to Trump’s presidential status. They argue that such a delay would violate Trump’s constitutional rights, including his due process rights under the Sixth and Eighth Amendments. The defense team also invoked the concept of presidential immunity, asserting that the mere pendency of an indictment against a sitting president violates the Constitution. They contend that allowing the case to continue during Trump’s second term would impede the functioning of the presidency and unfairly burden him with the threat of criminal punishment once he leaves office.
Trump’s legal team has also emphasized that any legal proceedings against him should be dismissed based on the presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act, and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. They argue that the ongoing legal threat against Trump would create an unconstitutional distraction for the president, undermining his ability to govern effectively.
At the heart of the defense’s argument is the criticism of Bragg’s character and the questionable legal strategies employed by his office. The defense team frames Bragg’s suggestion of abatement by death as a desperate and legally indefensible move to prolong the case and avoid a ruling that would dismiss the charges against Trump. The attorneys’ focus on this issue underscores their broader argument that the case should be dismissed entirely, given the constitutional protections afforded to the president and the flaws in the legal process surrounding the indictment.
