Trump’s sentencing delayed as prosecutors consider immunity argument

Prosecutors handling the hush money case against former U.S. President Donald Trump have agreed to a delay in his sentencing. The decision comes after Trump’s lawyers requested the opportunity to argue that his conviction should be set aside based on the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting immunity to presidents for official acts.

The sentencing, originally scheduled for July 11, may now be pushed back as Justice Juan Merchan considers the immunity argument. While overturning the conviction will be challenging for Trump, as much of the conduct in question predates his presidency, the agreement to delay the sentencing increases the likelihood of a postponement.

The potential delay in sentencing eliminates the possibility of Trump, who is also the Republican presidential candidate, facing confinement just days before the Republican National Convention begins in Milwaukee on July 15.

The landmark ruling by a 6-3 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices stated that Trump cannot be prosecuted for actions within his constitutional powers as president, but he can be prosecuted for unofficial acts. This ruling virtually ensures that Trump will not go to trial before the November 5 election for separate federal criminal charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Trump has pleaded not guilty to those charges.

In a letter to Justice Merchan, Trump’s lawyers argued that the evidence presented during his trial included actions taken in his official capacity as president regarding the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. They asserted that the trial result cannot stand and requested permission to submit a full brief on the issue by July 10.

In response, prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office stated that Trump’s argument was without merit, but they agreed to give him the chance to present his case. They requested until July 24 to reply to the defense’s full motion.

Trump, who pleaded not guilty, plans to appeal his conviction after sentencing, which took place on May 30. Prosecutors contended that Trump directed the payment to Daniels in October 2016 to maintain her silence about an alleged sexual encounter in 2006 until after the 2016 presidential election. Trump has consistently denied the allegations.

According to the Supreme Court ruling, evidence related to official actions cannot be used to prove criminal cases involving unofficial actions. Trump’s lawyers argued that conversations Trump had in the White House and social media posts made during his presidency constituted official acts. They cited tweets from April 21, 2018, and August 22, 2018, as examples.

Trump’s legal team maintains that the evidence related to official acts should not have been presented to the jury during the hush money trial. This argument echoes a similar one made by Trump in a failed attempt to move the case to federal court last year. In July 2023, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that the payment to Daniels was a purely personal matter unrelated to a president’s official acts.

While the outcome of Trump’s immunity argument remains uncertain, the delay in sentencing allows for further exploration of this legal avenue and adds another twist to the already complex legal proceedings surrounding the former president.