Delayed Sentencing for Trump in Hush Money Case: Immunity Argument to be Heard
A New York court has postponed the sentencing of former President Donald Trump in a criminal case related to hush money payments made to a porn star until September 18. This decision was made to allow Trump and his legal team the opportunity to argue that he should have immunity from prosecution due to his former position as president.
The original sentencing date was scheduled for July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention's commencement. Trump is anticipated to be the Republican nominee, challenging incumbent Democratic President Joe Biden in the November 5 election.
Trump faces an arduous task in seeking to overturn his conviction. The majority of the conduct in question occurred prior to his presidency. However, Trump's attorneys presented a request to Justice Juan Merchan on Monday, arguing that his conviction in the New York state court should be overturned based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in July, which established that presidents are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in their official capacity.
Prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office maintain that Trump's argument lacks merit but consented to the sentencing delay to provide Trump with the chance to present his case.
A Manhattan jury convicted Trump on May 30 on charges of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels by his former attorney, Michael Cohen. The payment was intended to prevent Daniels from disclosing an alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006 until after the 2016 election, in which Trump defeated Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
Prosecutors contend that the payment was part of an illegal scheme to influence the election's outcome. Trump denies having had an intimate relationship with Daniels and has vowed to appeal the conviction post-sentencing.
In their letter to Merchan, Trump's defense attorneys argue that prosecutors introduced evidence related to Trump's official actions as president, including social media posts and conversations that occurred during his time in the White House.
According to the Supreme Court's ruling, prosecutors cannot utilize evidence pertaining to official activities to substantiate criminal cases involving non-official actions. This evidence related to official actions should not have been presented to the jury, argue attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove.
In the past, Trump made a similar argument in an unsuccessful attempt to have the hush money case moved to federal court. U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein rejected Trump's request in July 2023, stating that the payment to Daniels was strictly a personal matter.
Hush money paid to an adult film star is not connected to a president's official duties, Hellerstein wrote.
Trump's attorneys appealed Hellerstein's ruling, but later withdrew their efforts.
