Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump pauses before speaking during a campaign rally on Sept. 25, in Mint Hill, N.C.
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Brandon Bell/Getty Images
A New York judge agreed to indefinitely postpone sentencing in a federal criminal case against President-elect Donald Trump. The judge, Juan Merchan, said he is adjourning a planned Nov. 26 sentencing and paved the way forward for Trump’s lawyers to file a motion to dismiss.
The decision marks another win for the president-elect, who is set to return to the White House in January just as his other criminal trials have also been stalled.
And it follows several filings by District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who prosecuted Trump, and Trump’s lawyers, who have both signaled interest in further staying the sentencing while they make arguments over whether the case should be dismissed altogether or if the president-elect should still be prosecuted.
Lawyers will litigate dismissing the case
Following his conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that presidents have immunity for official acts they take in office.
Trump’s legal team then argued that various witness testimonies in the hush-money case – such as that of former White House employees – and evidence – like statements made while he was president – violate the ruling because they’re official acts and thus excluded from prosecution.
Bragg has argued that the jury’s deliberations, which came before the July Supreme Court ruling, should also be given weight. Still, prosecutors noted they “deeply respect the Office of the President” and that Trump’s inauguration in January raises unprecedented legal questions. They suggested sentencing could be delayed until after Trump finishes his presidential term after 2028.
Following his conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that presidents have immunity for official acts they take in office.
Trump’s legal team then argued that various witness testimonies in the hush-money case – such as that of former White House employees – and evidence – like statements made while he was president – violate the ruling because they’re official acts and thus excluded from prosecution.
Bragg has argued that the jury’s deliberations, which came before the July Supreme Court ruling, should also be given weight. Still, prosecutors noted they “deeply respect the Office of the President” and that Trump’s inauguration in January raises unprecedented legal questions. They suggested sentencing could be delayed until after Trump finishes his presidential term after 2028.
