Trump’s Hush-Money Sentencing Is Officially on Hold

by · NY Times

Trump’s Sentencing in New York Is Officially on Hold

The judge in the case confirmed that the former and future president, who was convicted on 34 felony counts, would not receive his punishment next week.

  • Share full article
  • 111
Donald J. Trump, seen at his criminal trial in New York in May, was convicted of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal.
Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

By Ben Protess

A New York judge on Friday postponed President-elect Donald J. Trump’s sentencing in his Manhattan criminal case, confirming that the former and future president would not receive his punishment next week.

Mr. Trump was convicted in May of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal and was scheduled to be sentenced on Tuesday, but his election victory made that all but impossible. The judge had already decided to halt the sentencing while Mr. Trump’s lawyers sought to have the whole case thrown out.

Prosecutors from the office of Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, declined to drop the case this week, noting that a jury had already convicted Mr. Trump. But they agreed to delay the sentencing and signaled a willingness to freeze the case for four years while Mr. Trump holds office.

So far, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, has not ruled on whether to freeze the case or dismiss it. He simply confirmed on Friday that Mr. Trump’s lawyers could formally seek a dismissal, and that the sentencing would be on hold while the defense submitted its arguments.

The battle over whether to dismiss the case could stretch on for months or more and ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. If he ultimately loses in the courts, Mr. Trump could be sentenced once he leaves office. He faces up to four years in prison.

Nevertheless, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, Steven Cheung, declared victory, calling the postponement a “decisive win.”

In his statement, Mr. Cheung claimed that “all of the sham lawfare attacks against President Trump are now destroyed,” an apparent reference to Mr. Trump’s three other criminal cases winding down in the wake of the election.

Justice Merchan ordered Mr. Trump’s lawyers to submit their arguments on Dec. 2, the same day that the federal special counsel prosecuting Mr. Trump in Washington and Florida is expected to outline plans for resolving those cases.

In arguing that the Manhattan case should be dismissed because of his election, Mr. Trump’s lawyers are expected to rely on broad interpretations of a 1963 law that enshrined the importance of a smooth transition into the presidency, as well as a longstanding Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot face federal criminal prosecution.

That policy undoubtedly applies to the federal special counsel’s two cases, but its authority over Mr. Bragg, a local prosecutor who secured Mr. Trump’s conviction before the presidential election, is an open question.

Mr. Bragg will respond to the defense on Dec. 9, potentially allowing Justice Merchan to rule before the year-end holidays.

While it is unclear how Justice Merchan will rule, he is a former prosecutor known for his law-and-order leanings and respect for jury verdicts. Justice Merchan might be more amenable to freezing the case for the duration of the Trump presidency than dismissing it, having already postponed the sentencing twice.

In a letter to the judge this week, Mr. Bragg’s prosecutors outlined their argument against throwing out the case, emphasizing the importance of upholding the jury’s verdict.

After a seven-week trial, a jury of 12 New Yorkers convicted Mr. Trump of orchestrating a cover-up involving a hush-money deal with a porn star.

“The people deeply respect the office of the president, are mindful of the demands and obligations of the presidency, and acknowledge that defendant’s inauguration will raise unprecedented legal questions,” the prosecutors wrote. “We also deeply respect the fundamental role of the jury in our constitutional system.”

While not explicitly endorsing a four-year freeze in the case, the prosecutors raised it as a preferable alternative to dismissing it, highlighting “the need to balance competing constitutional interests.”

News and Analysis of Trump's Transition