WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump’s criminal sentencing in the New York hush money case is likely to be delayed while the judge reviews the U.S. Supreme Court’s Monday ruling on presidential immunity, according to multiple media reports.
New York judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the case, is said to have reportedly New York Times And Related Press cite the court records.
Trump claims his 34 New York crimes Convictions violates Monday’s Supreme Court ruling and should be dismissed, according to a letter obtained by States Newsroom from Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche.
“The rulings in this case violate the doctrine of presidential immunity and pose a serious risk of ‘executive self-cannibalization,'” Blanche wrote, adding that upon further review “it will be evident that the trial outcome cannot stand.”
New York State court records are not directly available online.
A Manhattan jury found the former president guilty on May 30 on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with the payment of hush money to a porn star in the weeks before the 2016 presidential election.
According to media reports, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed to a two-week postponement of Trump’s sentencing in a letter to Merchan.
Merhan has scheduled the sentencing for July 11, just days before Trump is set to be officially nominated as his party’s 2024 presidential candidate at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. A two-week delay would postpone the sentencing until after the nomination.
As of Tuesday afternoon, no official stay notice had been posted in New York courts. Website where the decisions related to the case are published.
Statement on the immunity of the President
The Supreme Court governed In a 6-3 decision, it was found that former U.S. presidents enjoy absolute criminal immunity for core powers “guaranteed by the Constitution” and are “entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all their official acts,” but are not immune from prosecution for “unofficial acts.”
Trump escalated the issue of presidential immunity to the Supreme Court after two lower courts disputed his requests for immunity from federal criminal proceedings claims In his final months in the Oval Office, he tried to overturn the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
The majority of judges Opinion The 2020 election interference case was remanded to the lower district court to decide whether Trump’s actions were official or unofficial. Those actions include Trump’s conversations with state officials about overturning election results and his social media posts alleging election fraud.
New York ruling
Blanche urged Merchan to “overturn” Trump’s conviction based on Monday’s Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States, the July 1 letter said.
Blanche claimed that the evidence presented by prosecutors in the New York case against Trump was likely “official acts.”
The New York state case centered on actions taken by Trump during his first year in office, including a meeting in the Oval Office to discuss financial transactions with his former personal attorney and checks he personally signed.
“Under (Trump v. US), this evidence should never have been presented to the jury in the form of official actions,” Blanche wrote.
“In addition, as we have previously argued, (Trump v. US) prohibits the ‘[u]of evidence for such [official] conduct, even if an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct. This includes President Trump’s “tweets” and “public addresses[es]’,” Blanche wrote, quoting directly from the Supreme Court Opinion.
New York prosecutors presented mountains of evidence during the seven-week trial, including business records and witness testimony, showing that Trump had repaid his former lawyer Michael Cohen $130,000 he donated to porn star Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. Trump later accounted for the payments as “legal expenses” and increased the amount to Cohen to account for taxes and a bonus.
The testimony also revealed that Trump met with Cohen in the Oval Office to discuss the repayment plan. Nine checks bearing Trump’s personal signature were also presented as evidence.
The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests for comment.
