Judge Juan Merchan has postponed the sentencing of former President Donald Trump in the New York v. Trump case until September. This decision follows requests from Trump’s legal team, who cited a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, and faced no opposition from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Trump was found guilty last month on all counts of falsifying business records in the first degree after a six-week trial. The trial stemmed from Bragg’s investigation into Trump’s business dealings. Initially, Trump’s sentencing was scheduled for July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention, where Trump is expected to be formally nominated as the 2024 GOP presidential candidate.
On Monday, Trump moved to overturn his criminal conviction in the Manhattan case, leveraging the Supreme Court’s recent decision that former presidents have substantial immunity for official acts committed while in office. Trump’s legal team also requested a delay in sentencing, which Bragg did not oppose. Consequently, Judge Merchan rescheduled the sentencing to September 18 at 10:00 a.m.
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision on presidential immunity has significant implications for Trump’s case. The ruling emerged from charges brought against Trump in a separate federal case related to the January 6 U.S. Capitol breach and alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump’s attorneys quickly sought to apply this new standard to the Manhattan case as well.
In a letter to Trump’s attorneys and New York prosecutors, Merchan stated, “The July 11, 2024, sentencing date is therefore vacated. The Court’s decision will be rendered off-calendar on September 6, 2024, and the matter is adjourned to September 18, 2024, at 10:00 AM for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings.”
Trump’s attorneys, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, plan to argue that, based on the Supreme Court’s decision, prosecutors should not have been allowed to introduce evidence about official acts Trump took while in office. They contend that the “official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury,” citing a March 7 pretrial motion in which they asked Merchan to bar certain testimony and evidence, particularly pertaining to Trump’s social media posts and public statements made while in office.
In their letter, Trump’s attorneys wrote, “The verdicts in this case violate the presidential immunity doctrine and create grave risks of ‘an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself.'” They quoted the Supreme Court’s ruling, which stated that evidence about official acts cannot be introduced “even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct.”
Prosecutors from Bragg’s office responded that they believe Trump’s arguments are without merit but did not oppose the request to delay sentencing. “Although we believe [Trump’s] arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” Bragg’s team stated.
The Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors argued that Trump, in 2017, signed off on an effort to cover up reimbursements for a “hush money” payment to an adult film star during his 2016 presidential campaign. The crimes, typically misdemeanors, were escalated to felonies in this case.
Trump’s legal team argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling confirmed their position that Bragg should not have been allowed to offer evidence at the trial regarding Trump’s “official acts.” They believe the jury’s guilty verdict should be set aside as a result.
The crux of the issue for Merchan will be whether some of the evidence, such as testimony from former Trump aide Hope Hicks describing a conversation she had with Trump while he was president, is off-limits. If so, a new trial could be required unless Merchan finds the error was harmless because Trump would have still been convicted.
Merchan approved the delay in sentencing in a letter to Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors from Bragg’s office. However, Trump’s team could face an uphill battle, as Merchan previously dismissed their attempt to get the case tossed out on immunity grounds. He stated that he would issue a ruling related to the immunity decision on September 6.
Trump faces a range of potential sentences, including prison time, probation, and a fine. Bragg has not yet indicated what kind of sentence he will seek.
The delay in sentencing means that Trump will not face any concrete punishment for his felony conviction during the summer, coinciding with his election bid. The Supreme Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications, potentially impacting other indictments against Trump, including those related to classified documents and Georgia election interference.
Trump’s legal team remains steadfast in their argument that the Supreme Court’s decision supports their position. They pointed to evidence elicited during the trial from Trump’s time in office, including testimony from Hope Hicks, tweets sent by Trump while in office, and phone records involving Trump while he was president.
In their letter, Trump’s attorneys wrote, “Under Trump, this official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury. Consistent with arguments that we made before and during the trial, the Supreme Court held in Trump that President Trump ‘may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.’”
The story continues to develop as both sides prepare for the upcoming court dates in September.
Source: Fox News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN
