The Manhattan district attorney’s office said it would not oppose delaying former President Trump’s sentencing in his hush money criminal case slated for Sept. 18, suggesting prosecutors would instead defer to the judge.
Trump has demanded a delay in sentencing until after the November presidential election. Among other arguments, he asserts that he will immediately appeal if the judge doesn’t wipe the guilty verdict following the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. A ruling is expected by Sept. 16, two days prior to Trump’s sentencing.
In a two-page letter responding to Trump’s delay request that became public Monday, prosecutors said some of his other arguments had no merit, and “there are strong reasons” why Trump should not be permitted to appeal an unfavorable immunity ruling prior to sentencing.
“Nonetheless, given the defense’s newly-stated position, we defer to the Court on whether an adjournment is warranted to allow for orderly appellate litigation of that question, or to reduce the risk of a disruptive stay from an appellate court pending consideration of that question,” state lawyer Matthew Colangelo wrote in the filing.
Prosecutors also noted that “significant public safety and logistical steps” by numerous agencies are necessary when Trump appears in court, raising concern that such steps would be taken ahead of his sentencing and then “disturbed” by the former president’s appeals.
Judge Juan Merchan’s proclamation that he will rule on the immunity issue two days prior to Trump’s sentencing means those appeals are poised to take place at the last minute, possibly just hours before the currently scheduled sentencing.
Prosecutors’ letter went on to flatly reject Trump’s other arguments, including his renewed concerns about Merchan’s daughter’s work at a progressive digital agency.
The judge has repeatedly rejected Trump’s calls for his recusal, citing guidance from a state ethics group. Prosecutors called it “bizarre” that Trump’s lawyers in their delay request cited social media posts from one of the daughter’s colleagues supporting the new Democratic presidential ticket.
In May, Trump was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money deal his ex-fixer made with a porn actor who said she had an affair with Trump, which he has denied. It marked the first criminal conviction of any former president.
Trump’s lawyers have latched on to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, which found that former presidents have at least presumptive protection from criminal prosecution over their official acts taken while in office.
Under the ruling, prosecutors cannot bring in immunized acts as evidence, with few exceptions, even if the charges are for otherwise unprotected conduct.
Though much of Manhattan prosecutors’ case rested on a “catch-and-kill” scheme to keep negative stories about Trump out of the press, including that he made a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels during his successful 2016 campaign, the former president claims his 34-count conviction is tainted because the jury saw a handful of acts now deemed protected as official acts during the seven-week trial.
The evidence in question includes witness testimony from two White House aides, a government ethics form and some of Trump’s tweets while in office.
Prosecutors have pushed back on the arguments, insisting the evidence is not protected despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, and that even if it was, the verdict should stand because any error was harmless.
But their lack of objection to delaying Trump’s sentencing raises a strong possibility that it will be pushed deeper into the campaign season or even past November’s election.
