A New York judge on Tuesday delayed Donald Trump’s sentencing for his conviction on criminal charges stemming from hush money paid to a porn star until Sept. 18, after the former U.S. president asked for a chance to argue he should have been immune from prosecution.
The sentencing had previously been set for July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention begins in Milwaukee on July 15. Trump is expected to be his party’s nominee to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 election.
Trump faces an uphill battle getting the hush money conviction overturned, since much of the conduct at issue in the case predated his time in office.
Trump’s lawyers on Monday asked Justice Juan Merchan to allow them to argue his conviction in New York state court in Manhattan should be overturned due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on July 1 that presidents are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
Prosecutors with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office said Trump’s argument was “without merit,” but agreed to delay the sentencing to give Trump the chance to make his case.
The email you need for the day’s
top news stories from Canada and around the world.
A Manhattan jury on May 30 found him guilty of falsifying business records to cover up his former lawyer Michael Cohen’s $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about an alleged 2006 sexual encounter until after the 2016 election, when Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Prosecutors said the payment was part of an illicit scheme to influence the election.
Trump denies having had sex with Daniels and has vowed to appeal the conviction after his sentencing.
In their letter to Merchan, defense lawyers argued that prosecutors had presented evidence involving Trump’s official acts as president, including social media posts he made and conversations he had while in the White House.
Under the Supreme Court’s ruling, prosecutors cannot use evidence related to official actions to help prove criminal cases involving unofficial actions.
“This official-acts evidence should never have been put before the jury,” lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove wrote.
Last year, Trump made a similar argument as part of an unsuccessful push to move the hush money case to federal court. In denying Trump’s request in July 2023, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein wrote that the payment to Daniels “was a purely personal item.”
“Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a president’s official acts,” Hellerstein wrote.
Trump’s lawyers appealed Hellerstein’s decision, but later abandoned the effort.
—Reporting by Luc Cohen in New York and Susan Heavey in Washington; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Noeleen Walder, Howard Goller and Daniel Wallis
