Initially scheduled for sentencing on November 26, 2024, Judge Juan Merchan is expected to either cancel or postpone the sentencing to avoid complications arising from Trump’s recent election as president-elect.
The hush money allegations
This case dates back to a 2016 payment made by Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. The $130,000 payment was intended to silence Daniels about an alleged past relationship with Trump. Prosecutors argued that Trump later reimbursed Cohen under the guise of legal expenses, effectively falsifying business records. In May 2024, Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying records connected to this scheme, making him the first former president to face such a conviction.
Impact of presidential immunity on the case
The delay is partly influenced by Trump’s legal team’s argument regarding presidential immunity. In July, the US Supreme Court ruled that presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for actions deemed official. Trump’s attorneys claim that some of the evidence presented during the trial, including testimony from former White House aides, violated this immunity by including details of Trump’s official acts. Merchan must now decide whether this immunity warrants dismissing Trump’s conviction or shielding specific evidence.
Balancing presidential responsibilities with legal consequences
Legal experts argue that sentencing a president-elect could interfere with his transition duties. Sentencing, even if deferred until after Trump’s term, might be perceived as obstructing his ability to assume office. Some suggest a more likely scenario would involve postponing the case until Trump completes his term, allowing him to continue his presidential duties without court-ordered penalties, such as probation or fines.
A prosecutor for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg emailed Merchan Sunday night, saying Trump asked for a pause “based on the impact on this proceeding from the results of the Presidential election.”
“The People agree that these are unprecedented circumstances,” wrote the prosecutor, Matthew Colangelo, who added there’s a need to balance the interests of “a jury verdict of guilt following trial that has the presumption of regularity; and the Office of the President.”
Political implications and the public’s Perception
Trump lawyer Emil Bove followed up in his own email to Merchan, writing that a “stay, and dismissal, are necessary to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern.”
The case’s delays have amplified the political discourse around Trump’s presidency and legal controversies. Democrats have used Trump’s conviction as a point of criticism, while Trump continues to label the prosecution a politically motivated “witch hunt.” His legal team contends that further proceedings would hinder an elected president’s ability to govern, an unprecedented situation that tests the boundaries of legal precedent.
What’s next?
Judge Merchan’s ruling, expected soon, could influence Trump’s path forward. If he dismisses the conviction, the sentencing becomes moot. If the case proceeds, however, legal arguments over presidential immunity and its applicability to former officeholders could shape future cases involving high-profile political figures.
The decision surrounding Trump’s conviction and possible sentencing is complicated, weighing judicial responsibility against political impact. As the proceedings evolve, Trump’s transition to the White House remains a focal point, intersecting legal, political, and public spheres in an unparalleled way.
