Judge in Trump Hush-Money Case Delays Sentencing After Immunity Claim – The New York Times
Trump Hush-Money Trial
Advertisement
Supported by
Donald J. Trump’s lawyers want to argue that a Supreme Court decision giving presidents immunity for official acts should void his felony conviction for covering up hush money paid to a porn star.
Ben Protess, William K. Rashbaum, Kate Christobek and
The judge in Donald J. Trump’s Manhattan criminal case delayed his sentencing until Sept. 18 to weigh whether a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling might imperil the former president’s conviction, the judge said Tuesday in a letter to prosecutors and defense lawyers.
The judge, Juan M. Merchan, may ultimately find no basis to overturn the jury’s verdict, but the delay was a surprising turn of events in a case that had led to the first conviction of an American president. With the election on the horizon, the sentencing might be the only moment of criminal accountability for the twice-impeached and four-time-indicted former president whose other cases are mired in delay.
Mr. Trump, who was convicted of falsifying business records related to his cover-up of a sex scandal during his 2016 presidential campaign, was initially scheduled to be sentenced on July 11, just days before he is to be formally nominated for president at the Republican National Convention. He faces up to four years in prison, though he could receive as little as a few weeks in jail, or probation.
Former President Donald J. Trump faced 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, related to the reimbursement of hush money paid to the porn star Stormy Daniels in order to cover up a sex scandal around the 2016 presidential election.
On Monday, the planned sentencing hit a snag when the Supreme Court granted Mr. Trump broad immunity from prosecution for official actions taken as president. The landmark ruling, which was decided 6-3 along partisan lines, dealt a major blow to Mr. Trump’s federal criminal case in Washington, where he is accused of plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss.
The ruling appears to have little direct bearing on the Manhattan case, which concerns Mr. Trump’s personal activity during the 2016 campaign, not his presidency or official acts. And Justice Merchan might be skeptical of Mr. Trump’s effort to use the ruling to set aside his conviction.
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Advertisement