New York judge rejects Donald Trump’s request to stay sentencing in hush money criminal case

NEW YORK– President-elect Donald Trump, seeking to stay upcoming sentencing in his New York hush money criminal case, filed a lawsuit Monday against Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan for the denial of the judge of his requests for presidential immunity.

The complaint comes as Judge Merchan denied a request from Trump, filed earlier Monday, that Merchan suspend sentencing, scheduled for Friday.

Trump’s lawyers filed a complaint — called a Rule 78 motion — with New York’s First Appellate Division.

Trump’s lawyers argued in the lawsuit that Judge Merchan exceeded his jurisdiction when he rejected Trump’s request for presidential immunity in his ruling last week and ordered Trump to appear for sentencing. sentencing, in person or virtually, on January 10 following his sentencing in May.

Trump was convicted in May of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to improve her electoral chances in the 2016 presidential election.

In denying Trump’s request to halt sentencing, Merchan wrote: “This Court has reviewed the defendant’s arguments in support of his motion and finds that they are for the most part a repetition of the arguments which he has raised several times in the past. »

“Further, this Court finds that the authorities relied upon in Defendant’s present motion are mostly factually differentiable from the actual record or legally inapplicable,” Merchan wrote.

In asking Merchan to stay the sentencing, Trump’s lawyers had argued that Merchan “would not have the authority to proceed with sentencing” because Trump was still appealing Merchan’s earlier decision that the The Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling did not apply to the New York financial silence case.

“Forcing a president to continue to pursue a criminal case — potentially through trial or, even more dramatically here, through sentencing and adjudication — while the appeals courts are still grappling with his immunity claim would, in effect, force this president “to answer for his conduct in court before his immunity claim is ultimately adjudicated,” defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote.

Merchan had initially scheduled sentencing for July 11 before pushing it back to determine whether Trump’s sentencing was affected by the Supreme Court’s July ruling barring the prosecution of a president for official acts performed while in office. Merchan later ruled that Trump’s conviction was “entirely related to unofficial conduct” and “presents no danger of intrusion upon the authority and function of the executive branch.”

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office urged Merchan to deny Trump’s request, arguing in a filing released Monday that the court had already “bent over backwards” to allow Trump to raise his presidential immunity claims.

Bragg rejected Trump’s argument that his ongoing appeals mean Merchan doesn’t have the authority to move forward.

“The notices of appeal that defendant will file with the Appellate Division do not deprive this Court of jurisdiction or automatically stay proceedings before this Court,” Bragg argued in his filing.

Prosecutors argued that Trump’s lawyers failed to make the “extraordinary evidence” needed to justify suspending the entire case as they had requested, arguing that the delay was largely due to Trump’s own fault.

“The current timetable is entirely a function of the accused’s repeated requests to adjourn a sentencing date originally set for July 11, 2024; he should not be heard now to complain about the harm caused by the delays he has caused.” , says the file.

The prosecutor said Trump’s Jan. 10 sentencing would not interfere with his official duties because they are “duties he will not perform until Jan. 20, 2025.”

“The president-elect is, by definition, not yet president. The president-elect therefore does not exercise any Article II function under the Constitution, and there is no Article II function II which would be burdened by ordinary criminal proceedings involving the president-elect,” the filing says.

Merchan indicated last week that he would sentence Trump to an absolute discharge — effectively a stain on Trump’s record — saying it struck a balance between the president’s duties and the sanctity of the jury’s verdict.

Trump’s lawyers, in their Monday filing, said that didn’t matter.

“There is no question that the Court suggested an intention to impose a sentence of absolute discharge. Although it is indisputable that the trumped-up charges in this baseless case should never have been brought and could not at this point warrant a sentence longer than that, no sentence is appropriate based on numerous legal errors – including legal errors directly related to presidential immunity that President Trump will address in the coming years. appeals,” the defense said in its court filing. Monday.

Trump, whose inauguration is scheduled for Jan. 20, also argued that the conviction would disrupt his presidential transition and “threaten the functioning of the federal government.”