Trump sentencing delayed, bail judge eyes Supreme Court ruling on immunity

The judge presiding over Donald Trump's criminal trial in New York agreed Tuesday to postpone Trump's sentencing hearing until September as he considers a challenge coming from the Supreme Court Ruling on Presidential Immunity.

Judge Juan Merchan informed Trump’s lawyers and Manhattan prosecutors of his decision to postpone sentencing on July 11 in response to a pair of letters from both sides following the Supreme Court’s decision Monday. The Supreme Court held that former presidents enjoy broad immunity for official acts and said evidence involving those acts cannot be used in prosecutions for unofficial activities.

Hours after the Supreme Court's decision was released, Trump's lawyers asked the court to allow them to file a motion to overturn the verdict in the case by July 10. Prosecutors from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office said that they were not opposed to delaying sentencing until the issue was resolved, and requested a July 24 deadline to respond to the defense motion.

In a brief response, Merchan approved the proposed schedule and wrote that he would issue a ruling on Trump's motion on Sept. 6. He set a new sentencing date of Sept. 18, “if that is still necessary.”

On May 30, a unanimous jury declared Trump guilty 34 counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors said Trump approved an effort in 2017 to conceal reimbursement of a “hush money” payment to an adult film star while he was running for reelection in 2016.

Trump's attorneys, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, said their motion would argue that, based on the Supreme Court's ruling, prosecutors should not have been allowed to present evidence regarding Trump's official acts while in office.

Trump's letter cited a March 7 pretrial motion in which they asked Merchan to bar certain testimony and evidence, including social media posts and public statements Trump made while in office that they said were made as official acts.

They said Monday that “evidence of official acts should never have been presented to the jury.”

“The verdicts in this case violate the doctrine of presidential immunity and create grave risks of an executive branch cannibalizing itself,” they wrote in their letter, citing the Supreme Court’s decision. The majority held that evidence of official acts cannot be presented “even on charges that purport to be based solely on his unofficial conduct.”

Prosecutors said in their response that they believed Trump's “arguments are without merit.”

“Although we believe [Trump’s] “Since the arguments are without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his purported request for an adjournment of sentencing pending the determination of his motion,” Bragg's team said.