On Friday, a New York-based judge opted to postpone the sentencing of former US President Donald Trump on charges related to hush money paid to adult actress Stormy Daniels until November 26th, which falls after the election. The Republican presidential candidate, Trump, put forth a request to Justice Juan Merchan for his sentencing to be deferred until after the November 5th election.
Originally, Trump was pencilled in to receive his sentence on September 18th, a date less than two months ahead of the voting event. During August, Trump’s legal team proposed that there would not be sufficient time prior to their client’s sentencing for them to possibly challenge Judge Merchan’s upcoming directive pertaining to their appeal to nullify the ruling, due to the pivotal decision by the US supreme court concerning presidential immunity. The ruling by Judge Merchan on the appeal was initially slated for September 16th.
The landmark ruling of the Supreme Court, addressing another criminal case Trump is embroiled in, concluded that presidents cannot be subject to criminal prosecution for actions conducted in office, and that proof of a president’s official acts cannot be leveraged to build a criminal case surrounding non-official actions.
Prosecution lawyers from the office of Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, contended that the case was centred on Trump’s private actions and not his presidential deeds, thus there was no justification for nullifying the ruling. However, they remained neutral on the topic of delaying Trump’s sentencing, indicating in a filing dated August 16th that the final call lies with Judge Merchan.
The prosecution indicated that an appeals court may decide to postpone the sentencing in order to provide more time for consideration of Trump’s objections, which they deemed would be “disruptive”. Bragg’s team also asserted that arranging court appearances for Trump invariably entailed significant security and logistical planning. They flagged the potential risk of readying for Trump’s sentencing only for it to be postponed – an issue exacerbated by the massive police deployment that his six-week trial necessitated in lower Manhattan.
Mr Bragg, refusing to press for a sentencing date ahead of the elections might be his way of steering clear of the accusations made by Mr Trump that he is inserting political influence in his campaign, noted George Grasso, a former New York State judge who observed the trial proceedings.
“It seems like he’s being appropriately cautious about inviting criticisms from Trump and his followers that his actions are overly political,” commented Mr Grasso, “He’s managed to tread a fine line.”
In an unprecedented case regarding any serving or past US president, Mr Trump was found guilty on May 30th for fabricating business documents to disguise the $130,000 payment made by his then-lawyer to Ms Daniels. This payment was made to keep Ms Daniels quiet about a sexual encounter that she alleges to have had with Trump ten years before the 2016 election. However, Trump denies these allegations and has vowed to contest the ruling once his sentence has been given.
The crime of fabricating business documents can be penalised by a sentence of up to four years in jail. However, it is more common for perpetrators of this crime to be penalised with fines or probation.
In the event of Mr Trump winning the election race for the White House, he may potentially instruct the Department of Justice to dismiss federal election interference charges levelled against him. However, he won’t hold the power to terminate the New York State case or the election interference case based in Georgia.