Photo credit: abcnews.go.com
Prosecutors Resist Trump’s Request to Delay Hush Money Case Rulings
Manhattan prosecutors expressed their reluctance on Tuesday concerning former President Donald Trump‘s request to postpone decisions in his hush money criminal case while he appeals to a federal court for intervention in his conviction. Nonetheless, they indicated a willingness to defer Trump’s sentencing date of September 18.
The district attorney’s office conveyed in a letter to the presiding trial judge that he is not mandated to delay post-trial decisions. This statement follows Trump’s recent attempt to transfer the case to a federal court after being tried in state court.
Prosecutors appealed to Judge Juan M. Merchan not to postpone rulings on critical defense motions: Trump’s request to defer sentencing until after the November election and his appeal to overturn the jury’s verdict following a recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
Judge Merchan has stated that he would make a ruling on Trump’s motion to overturn the verdict on September 16, with an anticipated decision on the sentencing delay forthcoming.
In May, Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records linked to a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, which he claims was made to prevent her allegations from disrupting his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump maintains that his actions were justified and insists he committed no wrongdoing.
The penalties for falsifying business records can reach up to four years in prison, although alternative sentences might include probation or monetary fines.
In a letter on Tuesday, Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo emphasized that the prosecution is not taking a firm stance on whether to delay sentencing, instead leaving that decision to Judge Merchan for an “appropriate post-trial schedule.”
Attorneys for Trump contend that moving forward with sentencing on September 18, just two days after Judge Merchan issues his ruling on immunity, would not afford Trump adequate time to consider his options for an appeal should the verdict be upheld.
They also argue that sentencing Trump less than two months before the election could constitute interference, suggesting that he might face incarceration as early voting approaches.
Colangelo remarked that the prosecution is amenable to a timeline that allows for a thorough examination of Trump’s request to dismiss the verdict while also ensuring that sentencing occurs without excessive delay.
Trump’s legal team previously asserted that postponing the proceedings is the “only appropriate course” as they seek federal intervention on grounds of constitutional rights violations and protections established by the Supreme Court’s decision that grants former presidents significant legal protections.
Should the case be transferred to federal court, Trump’s lawyers indicated they would then pursue overturning the verdict and dismissing the case on the basis of immunity. Last Friday, a federal court rejected Trump’s request for the case transfer due to procedural issues, allowing his legal team an opportunity to correct the filing and submit it again.
The Supreme Court’s ruling from July 1 clarified that prosecutions of former presidents regarding official actions are limited and that prosecutors cannot leverage official conduct to establish illegality in a president’s private dealings.
Trump’s attorneys assert that the prosecution hastily brought the case to trial rather than awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling and improperly introduced evidence that was likely inadmissible under that ruling, including testimonies from former White House staff about Trump’s reactions to the media coverage surrounding the hush money payments.
Previously, Trump’s legal representation sought to invoke presidential immunity in an unsuccessful effort to move the hush money case from state court to federal jurisdiction last year.
Source
abcnews.go.com