In order to give more time for arguments on whether the case should be dismissed, the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s hush money trial in New York postponed the sentencing that was originally planned for next week.
After Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office stated in a court filing this week that it would not challenge a motion by Trump’s lawyers to postpone his sentencing on 34 felony counts of fabricating business documents, State Judge Juan Merchan made his decision.
In a succinct ruling, Merchan gave Trump’s attorneys and prosecutors further time in early December to present their cases regarding whether the case ought to be dropped in light of his election as president. The prosecution has until December 9 to reply, and the defense must file by December 2.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity also caused Merchan to postpone making a decision on another outstanding issue: whether the verdict should be overturned. His initial deadline for making a decision on those motions was November 19.
He did not set a new sentencing date. On January 20, Trump is expected to take the oath of office as president.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung denounced the lawsuit as a “witch hunt” and a “hoax,” calling the decision “a decisive win” for the president-elect.
Trump’s lawyers contended that the sentencing hearing and the case should be “immediately dismissed” due to presidential immunity protections, which they claim are already in place because of his “overwhelming victory” on Election Day. Trump was supposed to be sentenced on November 26.
In a brief on Wednesday, Trump attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove contended that President Trump as president-elect is exempt from all criminal proceedings, just as a sitting president is.
Additionally, they have contended that it is too long to wait for him to be convicted after his tenure in office.
Last week, Trump announced his intention to appoint Blanche and Bove to senior positions at the Justice Department in his incoming government.
Manhattan prosecutors recognized that Trump’s sentence may need to happen after he leaves office, but they said they will contest his attempts to have the hush money case dismissed.
According to their filing, “The People have a great deal of respect for the Office of the President, are aware of the responsibilities and demands of the presidency, and recognize that the inauguration of the defendant will bring up previously unheard-of legal issues.”
Deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of the defendant’s upcoming presidential term is one of the non-dismissal options that may address any concerns raised by the pendency of a post-trial criminal proceeding during the presidency, prosecutors added, given the need to balance competing constitutional interests.
In May, following a weeks-long trial, Trump was found guilty on all counts of falsifying business documents to conceal his payment of hush money to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign by his then-attorney Michael Cohen.
Trump has refuted Daniels’ claim that she had a sexual encounter with him in 2006.
Originally set for July, Trump’s sentencing was postponed due to a July decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that enhanced presidential immunity protections in a federal case against Trump. His lawyers argued that the Supreme Court’s judgment meant that prosecutors shouldn’t have been allowed to use some of the trial evidence against him, and as a result, the New York conviction and the indictment that supported it should be overturned.
The jury verdict in Manhattan was the first time a former president of the United States had ever been found guilty of a felony. After Trump left office in 2021, four criminal cases were filed against him, and this was the only one that went to trial.
Following his election-day victory, the two federal trials are coming to a finish, while a state case in Georgia has been dragging along slowly as Trump and a few of his co-defendants have attempted to have the prosecutor removed from office. The hearing on their appeal was scheduled for December, but the appeals court abruptly canceled it this week.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!