NEW YORK — A gut punch for most defendants, Donald Trump has turned his criminal conviction into a rallying cry. His supporters wrote “I’m Voting for the Felon” on T-shirts, hats and lawn signs.

“The real verdict will be on November 5th by the people,” Trump proclaimed after his conviction in New York last spring on 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Now, just a week after Trump’s resounding election victory, a Manhattan judge is poised to decide whether to uphold the hush money verdict or throw it out because of a July U.S. Supreme Court decision that granted presidents immunity broad criminal investigation.

Judge Juan M. Merchan said he would issue a written opinion Tuesday on Trump’s request to overturn his conviction and either order a new trial or dismiss the indictment entirely.

Merchan was expected to govern in September, but delayed “to avoid any appearance” he was trying to influence the election. His decision could be back on ice if Trump takes other steps to delay or end the case.

If the judge upholds the verdict, the case would be on track for a hearing on November 26 – although that could change or disappear depending on appeals or other legal maneuvers.

Trump’s lawyers have been fighting for months to overturn his conviction, which involved efforts to conceal a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels, whose affair allegations threatened to derail his 2016 campaign.

Trump denies her claim, maintains she did nothing wrong and condemned the verdict as a “measured, shameful” result of a politically motivated “witch hunt” designed to damage his campaign.

The Supreme Court ruling gives former presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts — things they do as part of their job as president — and bars prosecutors from using evidence of official acts to try to prove that purely personal conduct violated the law.

Trump was a private citizen — campaigning for president but not elected or sworn in — when his then-lawyer Michael Cohen paid Daniels in October 2016.

But Trump was president when Cohen was reimbursed, and Cohen testified that they discussed the reimbursement arrangement in the Oval Office. Those reimbursements, jurors found, were falsely recorded in Trump’s records as legal expenses.

Trump’s lawyers say the Manhattan district attorney’s office “tainted” the case with evidence — including testimony about Trump’s first term as president — that should not have been allowed.

Prosecutors argue that the High Court’s decision provides “no basis to disturb the jury’s verdict”. Trump’s conviction, they said, involved unofficial acts — personal conduct for which he is not immune.

The Supreme Court has not defined an official act, leaving it to the lower courts. Nor did he clarify how his ruling — which arose out of one of Trump’s two federal criminal cases — relates to state-level cases like Trump’s criminal prosecution.

“There are some unclear aspects of the court’s ruling, but one that is particularly relevant to this case is the question of what counts as an official act,” said George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin. “And I think it’s extremely difficult to argue that this reward for this woman qualifies as an official act, for a number of fairly obvious reasons.”