Delay in Donald Trump’s New York hush money case sentencing likely following immunity ruling

Former President Donald Trump’s upcoming sentencing in his New York hush money case may be postponed to address whether the landmark conviction should be nullified following the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling that presidents enjoy extensive immunity from criminal prosecution.

A Manhattan jury found Trump guilty on May 30 of 34 counts of falsifying records linked to a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.

However, Trump’s legal team sent a letter to Judge Juan Merchan on Monday seeking permission to file a motion arguing that the verdicts should be invalidated.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office indicated Tuesday that this might justify postponing Trump’s sentencing, currently set for July 11.

“Although we believe defendant’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,” prosecutors said in a Tuesday letter to Merchan.

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

More:Major media outlets push for live coverage of Trump’s sentencing in ‘hush money’ case

Challenging the evidence

The New York hush money case focused on a series of 2017 payments Trump, by then in the White House, made to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen. Prosecutors alleged the money reimbursed Cohen for a $130,000 payment he made to Daniels to silence her before election day over an alleged encounter with Trump.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that courts should assume official presidential actions are shielded from prosecution, though prosecutors can rebut this assumption by demonstrating that the prosecution does not risk intruding on the authority and functions of the executive branch. The high court also determined that presidents are absolutely protected from prosecution for actions carried out under their sole constitutional authority. Unofficial actions may still face prosecution.

More:In historic ruling on presidential immunity, Supreme Court says Trump can be tried for private acts

Under the ruling, prosecutors cannot introduce evidence related to official conduct even when an indictment focuses on unofficial conduct, Trump’s lawyers pointed out in their letter to Merchan. They specifically challenged witness testimonies during the trial regarding events in the Oval Office, Trump’s social media posts during his presidency, and records of Trump’s calls while in office.

Previous presidential immunity delay attempt rejected

In early April, Merchan rejected Trump’s request to delay the trial based on presidential immunity, ruling that Trump raised the argument too late.

Merchan noted that Trump raised the issue on March 7, well after a 45-day period provided under New York law for filing pre-trial motions, despite Trump being aware for some time of the availability of the presidential immunity defense.

Merchan also highlighted that Trump had submitted court filings on the immunity issue in his federal election interference case in the autumn and discussed the matter when attempting to move his New York criminal case to federal court in May 2023, suggesting he could have raised the argument earlier in the hush money case.

In their Monday letter, however, Trump’s lawyers indicated that Merchan subsequently informed both legal teams that he would rule on objections to evidence related to presidential immunity as they arose, noting at least one such objection.