‘No good arguments against the delay’: Trump hush-money judge should postpone sentencing until after Election Day

Donald Trump is asking the judge in his New York hush-money criminal case to delay his sentencing until after the November presidential election. In a letter made public Thursday, lawyers for the former president and current Republican nominee suggested that sentencing Trump as scheduled on Sept. 18, about seven weeks before Election Day, would amount to election interference. Being in practice for over 27 years and handling many white collar criminal cases in both federal and state courts, I believe they have a valid argument for continuing the sentencing — and the state attorney in New York has a very weak argument against its continuance.

Trump is a 78-year-old man, with no prior criminal history. He isn’t going anywhere, and the request comes within 60 days of a national presidential election. The timing of the sentencing in itself raises suspicions of political motivation. Those reasons alone would be enough for an unbiased court to continue the sentencing until after the election.

Secondly, no matter what you think of him personally or politically, most attorneys will agree that the case against him was a novel use of the state crimes charged. The trial was marred by procedural irregularities and concerns of prosecutorial overreach. When unbiased experienced appellate attorneys review the case and the evidence, they agree that the appeal will be one that has merit. Further, the recent presidential immunity ruling from the Supreme Court almost guarantees that some of the evidence used to convict the President would have been excluded if the Supreme Court ruling was issued prior to the trial. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, the judge in the New York hush-money trial, is expected to issue his ruling on the immunity issue on Sept. 12, 2024, just 6 days prior to the date of sentencing. His ruling on that issue alone could raise appellate issues that should delay the sentencing.

If this was an everyday civilian and not Donald Trump, the judge would not usually have a problem with a continuance. In my experience in state and federal courts around the country, judges continue sentencing without issue for a myriad of reasons. I have obtained continuances for my clients on such simple things as children’s birthdays or more time to just get their affairs in order.

There is no good argument against the delay in sentencing. It does not effect the service of justice and it is something that is not out of the ordinary. In my opinion, the only reason to hold the sentencing prior to the election is to influence the outcome or to satisfy the court’s ego.

The court should avoid the appearance of injustice and the possibility of weakening public confidence in the system. An unbiased court should not be in a position to affect the outcome of an election, based on a rush to sentence an individual. If Merchan is truly unbiased as he has repeatedly stated, then he should grant the continuance and let Trump continue to campaign through November, unhampered from unnecessary outside influences.

Bradford Cohen is a trial lawyer and legal analyst with more than 20 years of litigation experience. He appeared on the second season of “The Apprentice” and has represented Donald Trump in civil legal matters. He also obtained clemency for multiple clients during Trump’s presidency.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.