Former President Donald Trump’s detractors eagerly awaiting his upcoming sentencing hearing in his New York criminal trial will have to wait at least two more months. Judge Juan Merchan agreed to delay the hearing to consider new arguments following the release of a Supreme Court ruling that may impact the admissibility of evidence used in the criminal trial.
Sentencing Hearing Delay
This week, Judge Juan Merchan agreed to delay the sentencing hearing to September 18 at the earliest to allow the Trump defense team to consider arguments emerging from a recent Supreme Court decision granting broad immunity protection to former U.S. Presidents.
Trump Team Requests Retrial
Trump’s defense attorneys argue that a new trial should be held in light of the latest Supreme Court ruling on Presidential immunity.
New Trial Request
Judge Merchan agreed to hear the Trump team’s arguments and set the sentencing hearing for September 18. A letter on the Court’s docket notified the public of the change.
Delay Allows Nomination Free From Shadow of Sentencing Hearing
The decision to delay the sentencing hearing will allow Trump to be named his party’s nominee without the specter of a recent sentencing, perhaps even including jail time. The Republican National Convention will begin July 15.
Trump’s Attorneys Moved Swiftly for Reconsideration
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling this week, Trump’s attorneys sent a letter to Judge Merchan asking for the opportunity to brief the judge on how the Court’s ruling impacted Trump’s felony convictions.
Prosecutors Willing to Move Sentencing, Dubious About Altering Outcome
Prosecutors signaled a willingness to move the sentencing hearing but have stated that they do not expect any change in the verdict or the appropriateness of the original trial.
Arguments from Trump’s Defense Team
Trump’s team has pointed out that Trump’s convictions—acts falsifying business records—were undertaken while he was already in office. Therefore, the actions could possibly be construed as official acts and protected from criminal prosecution.
Trump’s Defense Rests on Chief Justice’s Opinion
The way that the new ruling could be referenced to change the verdict for Trump comes from the specifics listed in the Opinion of the Court penned by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Supreme Court Ruling’s Impact
Roberts wrote that official acts cannot be used as evidence in court to prove criminal behavior in unofficial acts.
Hypothetical Example of Bribes and Ambassadorships
A hypothetical example often given is a bribe and a given ambassadorship. Attorneys may not use the given ambassadorship (official act) as proof in Court of an unofficial unlawful act (accepting a bribe).
Trump Attorneys Say that White House Conversations are Inadmissible Under New Ruling
Trump’s attorneys are capitalizing on this argument in the hush money case, saying that Trump’s actions while in office (official acts), such as conversations with Hope Hicks and other White House staff, cannot be used as proof of unofficial criminal activity.
Judge Merchan’s Upcoming Decisions
Merchan will now have to decide whether some of the evidence relied upon to convict Trump is inadmissible under the new Supreme Court rules. If Merchan finds that some evidence is now inadmissible, a new trial could be required. Alternatively, Judge Merchan could find that the evidence was unnecessary to lead to the conviction, and, therefore, the judgment could stand.
Potential Rulings and Sentencing
Merchan has stated that he will issue his ruling on September 6, prior to a pending sentencing hearing, in light of the new immunity provisions of the Supreme Court rule. Trump’s likely sentences upon his conviction on 34 felony counts include prison time, fines, and probation.
The lead prosecutor, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, has yet to reveal the sentence he will seek in the Trump sentencing hearing.
