According to legal expert Dave Aronberg, Donald Trump's recent attempt to have his hush money conviction thrown out in light of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling is highly unlikely to succeed. Trump's lawyers had requested Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over the falsifying business records trial in New York, to overturn the guilty verdict, arguing that certain evidence should not have been allowed.

The defense cited the Supreme Court's landmark ruling, which grants the former president presumptive immunity from prosecution for his "official acts" carried out while in office. They claimed that evidence presented during the Stormy Daniels hush money trial, such as Trump's tweets and testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks, should be considered official presidential acts.

However, Aronberg dismissed the likelihood of this appeal working, stating, "it's not going to happen." He questioned the notion of a hush money payment being considered an official act in helping Trump get elected as president. He pointed out that the Supreme Court has made it clear that official acts cannot be used as evidence under absolute immunity, even for constitutional duties and obtaining testimony.

Aronberg further asserted that Hicks' testimony was not essential to the case, and even if it was considered an error, it would be deemed harmless. He also noted that Trump's public tweets, including one where he admitted reimbursing his former lawyer Michael Cohen for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels, can be used as evidence, as they are public documents.

The sentencing for Trump's conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, related to the payment made to Daniels to keep their alleged affair a secret ahead of the 2016 election, was initially scheduled for July 11. However, the date has been postponed until September 18 as Judge Merchan evaluates the impact of the Supreme Court immunity ruling on the hush money case.

Trump's legal team has been approached for comment but has yet to respond. The defense argues that the use of official-acts evidence in the trial constituted a structural error under the federal Constitution, tainting the grand jury proceedings as well as the trial. They argue that these errors are too prejudicial to consider them harmless and strike at the core of the government's function.

As the legal battle continues, it remains to be seen whether Trump's efforts to overturn his hush money conviction will succeed in the face of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.