In a document on Tuesday, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg signaled that he would not oppose defense attorneys’ request to postpone the scheduled hearing until next week, suggesting that he was prepared to give up on a prompt sentencing in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial.
Following the Supreme Court’s stunning decision that declared sitting presidents are virtually immune from all official acts committed while in office, President Trump’s scheduled July 11th sentencing appears to be in risk. Due to the ruling on Monday, main defense lawyer Todd Blanche moved quickly to postpone the sentence hearing until later in the summer, while Judge Juan Merchan reviewed their request to have the conviction on 34 felony counts overturned. The New York Times stated that since both parties are in agreement, it seems likely that a postponement would take place.
The district attorney’s office stated in a letter to Trump’s attorneys that Merchan should give the defense’s filed motion some thought. Joshua Steinglass, an assistant district attorney who tried the case against the former president, wrote, “Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion.” One day before the planned sentencing, on July 10, Trump’s attorneys have indicated that they want to file court documents, and the prosecution has stated that they will reply two weeks later, according to the outlet.
According to The Hill, Blanche and his team have maintained that the prosecution brought information during the trial that would have been inadmissible in light of the latest Supreme Court decision. This might lead to a review of the entire case. In order to conceal a six-figure settlement with an adult film star and to quell suspicions of an affair that Trump has denied, President Trump was found guilty of supervising the fabrication of corporate records. Though the Republican’s attorneys pointed out that the Federal Election Commission’s earlier investigation had determined the contribution did not meet the criteria for being considered a campaign expense, Bragg’s team presented the payment during the trial as an illegal attempt to sway the 2016 election.
The 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court would significantly increase presidential powers, and the opponents of the outgoing president are now forced to consider what kind of leader Donald Trump may be if he were to win the presidency again. Chief Justice John Roberts argued in his majority opinion that a president should be free to perform his or her duties without being restricted by the threat of criminal prosecution. He did, however, clarify that non-official actions might be prosecuted as crimes.
“The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts states. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”
