A judge has rejected Donald Trump’s request to delay his sentencing in the hush-money case, with the ruling coming just days before the scheduled hearing. The motion, filed by Trump’s legal team, sought to postpone the sentencing while he appeals his conviction on 34 felony charges for falsifying business records. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who is overseeing the case, denied the motion, stating that Trump’s arguments were largely repetitive and did not present new legal grounds.
Trump had contended that the commencement of his appeal, which challenges the court’s decision on presidential immunity, should automatically halt the proceedings. His legal team argued that this appeal was pivotal to dismissing the charges, which they described as politically motivated and flawed. Trump further criticized the prosecution, calling it a politically driven attack led by a “disgraced” former attorney, and argued that the case violated his due process rights. He requested that the court vacate the January 10 sentencing and suspend all proceedings until the appeal is resolved.
In response, prosecutors from the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office opposed Trump’s motion, asserting that invoking presidential immunity in an interlocutory appeal did not warrant an automatic stay of the proceedings. They also expressed skepticism about the likelihood of Trump’s appeal succeeding. The prosecution emphasized that the appeal did not justify further delay in the sentencing process.
Judge Merchan, in his ruling, found that Trump’s legal arguments were largely unpersuasive, stating that the authorities cited in the motion were either factually distinguishable from the case at hand or legally inapplicable. Merchan also pointed out that the legal claims made by Trump did not merit halting the case at this stage.
Despite rejecting the request to delay sentencing, Merchan did signal that Trump might avoid significant legal consequences. In a separate order issued earlier, the judge indicated that while the law required a sentencing hearing, he was inclined to avoid imposing any prison time. The prosecution had already conceded that incarceration was not a realistic recommendation at this stage. Merchan suggested that an “unconditional discharge” might be the most viable solution, which would mean no further penalties for Trump, a decision typically made when a judge concludes that there is no practical reason to impose additional legal restrictions on a convicted individual.
The case stems from Trump’s involvement in a hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign, an act that prosecutors argue was part of an effort to conceal information that could have damaged Trump’s chances of winning the election. The conviction for falsifying business records is part of a broader legal saga that has involved multiple criminal investigations and lawsuits against the former president.
While Trump’s legal team has vowed to continue challenging the charges, Judge Merchan’s recent decisions suggest that he is not inclined to offer leniency, especially in light of the ongoing legal appeals. Nonetheless, the court has allowed Trump to participate virtually in the sentencing hearing, which will take place on January 10.
