On May 30, Donald Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records by a New York jury, making him the first U.S. president in history to be convicted of a crime. But there’s still a chance that Trump could avoid punishment as his legal team continues to make Hail Mary attempts to delay or move the proceedings. Judge Juan Merchan is also set to hand down his ruling on the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s immunity decision, which could determine whether the September 18 sentencing hearing goes on as planned. Here’s where things stand just a few weeks out.
How did this start?
Back in April 2023, Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg unveiled his office’s indictment accusing the former president of falsifying business records in connection to an election-year cover-up of an alleged past affair with Stormy Daniels. Trump has long denied that an affair ever occurred and pleaded not guilty in the matter. Despite numerous legal challenges, the trial commenced one year later, featuring weeks of testimony from former Trump insiders such as former White House aide Hope Hicks and his ex-lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen. But the 12-member jury would go on to convict Trump on all 34 counts on their second day of deliberations, with Merchan initially scheduling his sentencing for July.
How has Trump’s legal team responded?
With Trump in the middle of another bid for the White House, he and his legal team have sought to delay his sentencing with the aim of overturning his conviction entirely. Their latest weapon came in June as the Supreme Court issued its decision on presidential immunity, ruling that past and future presidents couldn’t be prosecuted for official acts taken while in office but could face repercussions for private acts. The decision has been a boon for Trump, disrupting the two pending federal cases against him and likely ensuring those matters won’t go to trial prior to the election.
Trump’s lawyers soon filed a motion seeking to vacate Trump’s conviction citing the Court’s decision, claiming that evidence that would fall under presidential immunity was used to prosecute their client. In their filing, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove specifically cited communications between Trump and Hicks, a White House employee, as well as tweets sent while Trump was in office as “official acts” that shouldn’t have been allowed at trial since they involved Trump in his official role as president.
Merchan agreed to push the sentencing hearing back to September 18 with the intent of ruling on the immunity argument prior to the proceedings. The judge’s decision, which is expected days earlier, would likely determine whether sentencing will occur as scheduled or if it could be postponed beyond Election Day.
Will the trial be moved into federal court?
As they await Merchan’s decision, Trump’s legal team pursued additional means: filing a motion requesting to move the case into federal court, once again citing a conflict with the Supreme Court’s immunity decision. This is familiar territory for Trump’s attorneys, who unsuccessfully sought to move the case out of state court last year before proceedings began by arguing that the actions allegedly taken by Trump constituted official acts.
On Tuesday, Alvin Hellerstein, the federal judge who denied their last attempt to take the case out of New York, once again rejected their request and referenced back to his earlier ruling. “Nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion affects my previous conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority,” Hellerstein wrote in his decision.
After Hellerstein’s ruling, Trump filed a notice of appeal, indicating that he intends to appeal the ruling to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. However, prosecutors from Bragg’s office sent a letter to Merchan, writing that there is now “no basis” to delay Trump’s sentencing following Hellerstein’s rejection.
What about Trump’s other pending cases?
The effects of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision can be keenly felt in Trump’s two federal cases. In July, Aileen Cannon, the controversial Florida federal judge, dismissed the Justice Department’s classified-documents case against Trump, citing the Court’s ruling. Special counsel Jack Smith has since appealed her decision, asking the appeals court to reinstate the case.
Smith has also filed a revised superseding indictment in the federal government’s election-subversion case, keeping the charges against Trump intact while removing certain allegations that could potentially run afoul of the Court’s ruling. The new filing takes out all references to former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark as well as allegations that Trump sought to use the Justice Department to challenge election results and support an election-fraud scheme.
