On July 2nd, prosecutors in the “Hush Money Case” involving former President Trump expressed that they do not oppose giving him an opportunity to defend himself against what he should have been exempt from prosecution. This indicates that the scheduled sentencing set for July 11 might be delayed.
A court document from that day revealed that the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Alvin Bragg, is willing to postpone the sentencing of the “Hush Money” case, originally set for July 11, for up to two weeks.
On May 30, a jury in a Manhattan court in New York City found Trump guilty in the “Hush Money” case. The case is set to hold a sentencing hearing on July 11 and deliver a verdict.
On Monday, Trump’s lawyers requested the court to allow them to present arguments, citing a Supreme Court ruling that day affirming a president’s immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, therefore, Trump’s conviction by the New York Manhattan court should be overturned.
Trump faces a tough battle to overturn his conviction as most of the actions involved in the case occurred before his tenure. However, with the agreement to delay the sentencing, Judge Juan Merchan is more likely to postpone the sentencing date and consider the argument of immunity.
Any delay in the sentencing would potentially lift the shadow of possible imprisonment from Republican presidential candidate Trump just days before the opening of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on July 15.
In a landmark ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in a 6-3 majority: Trump cannot be prosecuted for any actions within his constitutional powers as president, but can be prosecuted for unofficial acts.
The Constitution grants the president powers including issuing pardons, vetoing or signing bills, nominating high-level officials including cabinet members and Supreme Court justices, and commanding the military after Congress declares war on foreign nations.
The Supreme Court’s ruling grants the president a presumed immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within the scope of his official duties, which means that even if a president’s actions involve only a small part of his official capacity, he is presumed to have immunity from prosecution for it.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that in the case where a president is prosecuted for actions taken in a personal capacity, prosecutors cannot use the president’s official actions as evidence to prosecute him.
The Supreme Court’s ruling nearly guarantees that Trump will not face trial on another federal criminal charge before the November 5 election. This charge involves his efforts to overturn the outcome of his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Trump has pleaded not guilty to these charges.
In a letter to Judge Merchan, Trump’s lawyers argued that the evidence presented in the hush money trial, where prosecutors accused Trump of covering up payments made by his former lawyer Michael Cohen to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, stemmed from Trump’s official actions while in office.
Lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote, “The trial results cannot stand,” and requested to file a complete defense on this issue by July 10.
On Tuesday, prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s office rebutted, stating that Trump’s argument was “baseless,” but they could afford Trump the opportunity to state his case. They asked to respond to all of the defense’s motions by July 24.
Trump remains non-guilty and vows to appeal the conviction from May 30 after the sentencing. This marks the first criminal trial and conviction of a former or sitting U.S. president.
Prosecutors believe Trump directed Cohen to make a payment in October 2016 to keep Daniels silent about an alleged sexual encounter in 2006 until after the November 2016 presidential election. Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton that month to become president. Trump denies having had a sexual relationship with Daniels.
According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, prosecutors cannot use evidence related to official actions to help prove criminal cases involving unofficial actions.
Trump’s lawyers claim that the evidence presented in the hush money trial, including Trump’s statements in the White House and his social media posts during his term, constitutes official action.
These posts include a tweet from April 21, 2018, where Trump referred to Cohen as “a good man with a great family” and predicted he wouldn’t “flip.”
Jurors also saw a tweet from August 22, 2018, where after Cohen admitted to violating campaign finance laws by paying Daniels, Trump wrote, “If anyone is looking for a good lawyer, I would strongly suggest that you don’t retain the services of Michael Cohen!”
Trump’s lawyers wrote, “This evidence of official action should not have been submitted to the jury.”
Last year, Trump made similar arguments during the process of moving the “Hush Money Case” to federal court but was unsuccessful. In July 2023, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote that the money paid to Daniels was “purely personal.”
Hellerstein wrote, “The payment to an adult film star had nothing to do with the official actions of the president.”
Trump’s lawyers appealed Hellerstein’s ruling but later abandoned that effort.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling on July 1, President Biden labeled that decision as a “dangerous precedent,” undermining the rule of law and meaning that a president’s actions have almost no limits, causing “terrible harm” to the American people. He aligned with liberal justices saying, the principle upon which the country was founded is no king, “even the president is not above the law.”
Although this ruling did not dismiss the criminal prosecution against Trump, it will further delay any trial he might face until after the November presidential election, therefore considered to be a victory for Trump.
The trial judge now needs to determine which actions Trump took in his capacity as president. This could take months and is unlikely to be completed before the election.
Trump was charged with inciting the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, through his tweets and speeches, but the court ruled that his statements and social media activities that day were official actions.