Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg does not object to a judge in New York postponing Donald Trump 's sentencing hearing for the former president's hush money conviction, according to a court filing made public on Monday.
Prosecutors instead said they would leave the decision to delay Trump's sentencing date, which is scheduled for Sept. 18, up to Judge Juan Merchan.
"The People defer to the Court on the appropriate post-trial schedule that allows for adequate time to adjudicate defendant's [presidential immunity] motion while also pronouncing sentence 'without unreasonable delay,'" prosecutors wrote.
The prosecutors' position on sentencing Trump, who could face jail time for his conviction of 34 counts of falsifying business records, comes after the former president requested last week that Merchan push the sentencing hearing out past the presidential election.
Trump’s attorneys made several arguments for a later sentencing hearing, saying that sentencing the former president in the heat of election season, when early voting has already started, was a sign of “naked election-interference objectives.”
While prosecutors dismissed most of the defense attorneys' claims, they did appear to find one about the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity compelling.
Trump’s attorneys, in a separate request, had argued to Merchan that Trump’s conviction should be tossed out because certain evidence used at trial does not align with the Supreme Court’s decision that presidents can be immune from criminal prosecution. Merchan has said he will rule on the request on Sept. 16, two days before when the sentencing hearing is currently scheduled.
Trump’s attorneys said in their motion for a sentencing delay that they needed more than one full day to formulate an appeal to Merchan’s ruling if it is unfavorable to Trump.
Prosecutors did not outright dispute this, saying that the high court's immunity decision left open the question of whether Trump could appeal an adverse decision from Merchan.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“The Supreme Court's recent decision did not consider whether a trial court's ruling on that distinct evidentiary question is immediately appealable, and there are strong reasons why it should not be," prosecutors wrote. "Nonetheless, given the defense's newly-stated position, we defer to the Court on whether an adjournment is warranted to allow for orderly appellate litigation of that question, or to reduce the risk of a disruptive stay from an appellate court pending consideration of that question."
The prosecutors noted that they would be available to appear for a sentencing hearing "on any future date."
Most Popular
Comments / 0