Hush Money Case: New York Appeals Court Declines Trump’s Request To Postpone Sentencing

A New York appeals court judge has denied U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s request to delay his sentencing, which is scheduled for Friday, in the hush money case.

Associate Justice Ellen Gesmer made the decision after a brief hearing on Tuesday afternoon, rejecting Trump’s plea to postpone the proceedings while he appeals his conviction.

Trump had asked the court to stay the sentencing, arguing that it should be paused until his appeal is resolved. This request came after Judge Juan Merchan denied Trump’s earlier plea to halt the sentencing.

Todd Blanche, Trump’s attorney and a newly appointed deputy attorney general in the incoming administration, acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the situation while addressing the New York Appellate Division, First Department, on Tuesday. Blanche argued that a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in July regarding presidential immunity should protect Trump from sentencing while his appeal is underway. Despite Merchan rejecting two arguments to vacate Trump’s conviction, Blanche maintained that one of these arguments should justify a stay of proceedings during the appeal process.

Gesmer questioned whether there is any precedent for extending presidential immunity to a president-elect. Blanche responded, “There has never been a case like this before, so no.”

Manhattan District Attorney’s Office Chief of Appeals, Steven Wu, countered that Trump’s legal team had not provided any compelling reasons why the sentencing would interfere with Trump’s responsibilities as president-elect. Wu pointed out that now was the optimal time for the proceedings, especially as sentencing a sitting president for a state matter would pose significant challenges. He emphasized that the sentencing would have to occur eventually.

Blanche called the impending sentencing an “extraordinary” burden on Trump, arguing that criminal sentencing is a significant event in a person’s life, regardless of its duration. The judge interrupted, noting that Merchan would have been willing to sentence Trump as early as July.

Trump is appealing his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records, hoping to have it overturned based on the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, as well as his current status as president-elect. Merchan, however, has already rejected these arguments and scheduled Trump’s sentencing for Friday. Despite this, Merchan has indicated that he does not plan to impose a prison sentence on Trump.

Blanche expressed skepticism about Merchan’s statement, calling it a hypothetical and questioning its relevance. He argued that Trump’s appeal should be allowed to proceed before the sentencing. He also highlighted the U.S. Department of Justice’s refusal to pursue charges in two federal cases against Trump after he became president-elect.

Gesmer disagreed with Blanche’s analogy, stating that she did not find it convincing. When questioned about whether presidential immunity could extend to a president-elect, Wu responded, “There is none whatsoever for that claim.” He added that such a theory would undermine the principle that only one president serves at a time.

Should the appeals court rule against Trump, he may still pursue other legal avenues to delay the sentencing. If successful in halting the proceedings, Trump’s legal team could extend the hush money case for months while they continue to appeal the conviction.

Earlier in May, Trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to payments made to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, for a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels. The payment was made to prevent Daniels from speaking about an alleged affair with Trump ahead of the 2016 election. Trump has denied the affair.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International