The legal saga surrounding Donald Trump’s hush money conviction has taken another turn as the presiding judge delayed a crucial decision on the case’s future. This postponement, granted by Judge Juan Merchan in New York, stems from ongoing deliberations regarding presidential immunity and the unprecedented circumstances created by Trump’s recent election victory.
Judge Merchan was initially expected to rule on whether to dismiss Trump’s conviction in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity. However, both prosecution and defense requested additional time to assess the implications of this ruling and strategize their next steps, particularly given Trump’s return to the presidency.
“The People agree that these are unprecedented circumstances,” prosecutors acknowledged in a formal communication to the court, highlighting the uncharted legal territory the case now occupies. The judge has granted the prosecution until November 19th to formally submit their recommendations on how to proceed. This delay introduces further uncertainty into the timeline of a case that has already been subject to numerous twists and turns.
### MORE: Judge in Trump’s hush money case delays sentencing until after election
This development further postpones Trump’s sentencing, which is currently scheduled for November 26th. The initial conviction, delivered in May, found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. These charges are linked to a $130,000 hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 presidential election. Prosecutors successfully argued that this payment was illegally disguised as legal expenses to conceal an alleged sexual encounter from 2006 and to influence the outcome of the election.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, July 2024, amidst legal proceedings related to his hush money case and questions surrounding presidential immunity.
The core of the current legal debate revolves around the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity. While the payment to Daniels occurred before Trump assumed office, his defense team argues that prosecutors improperly introduced evidence related to his actions as president to bolster their case. They contend that actions taken during his presidency should be protected under presidential immunity, as defined by the Supreme Court’s July decision.
Trump’s legal team claims that “glaring holes” in the prosecution’s case were filled by evidence pertaining to his official presidential duties. This argument directly challenges the validity of the conviction, urging Judge Merchan to reconsider the verdict or dismiss the case entirely.
However, prosecutors firmly maintain that the case is fundamentally about “entirely personal” conduct that predates and is unrelated to Trump’s presidential responsibilities. They argue that the evidence concerning his time in office is minimal compared to the extensive evidence presented about his pre-presidency actions and intent to influence the 2016 election.
Prosecutors emphasize that “the evidence that he claims is affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling constitutes only a sliver of the mountains of testimony and documentary proof that the jury considered.” They believe the conviction rests firmly on evidence unrelated to presidential actions, making the immunity argument irrelevant.
Defense attorneys specifically point to testimony from former White House communications director Hope Hicks and Trump’s social media posts during his presidency as examples of evidence that improperly influenced the jury. They argue this evidence tainted the proceedings and necessitates a re-evaluation of the conviction.
### MORE: What happens to Trump’s criminal cases after his election win?
In response, the prosecution counters that Hicks’ testimony, for instance, focused on Trump’s awareness that the hush money allegations could negatively impact his election prospects – conduct they deem “solely unofficial” and outside the scope of presidential immunity. They argue that this testimony was crucial in demonstrating Trump’s intent to falsify business records for political gain, a key element of the felony charges.
Trump’s legal team has formally requested that the guilty verdict be overturned or the entire case dismissed. Judge Merchan now faces a range of options. He could uphold the conviction, potentially proceed with sentencing, although this is complicated by Trump’s impending presidency. Alternatively, he could grant a new trial, which would likely be delayed until after Trump leaves office again, or he could dismiss the indictment altogether, effectively ending the case.
Judge Merchan has already delayed sentencing twice prior to this latest postponement. These previous delays, including one following the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and another to avoid influencing the recent election, underscore the extraordinary nature of this case.
With Trump’s election victory, the legal landscape shifts once again. His inauguration, set to occur less than two months after the current sentencing date, significantly complicates the potential penalties Judge Merchan can impose. While the charges carry a potential sentence of up to four years in prison, legal experts note that first-time offenders in similar cases typically receive lighter sentences.
Furthermore, Trump’s return to the presidency is expected to impact his other pending criminal cases. Legal analysts anticipate that Special Counsel Jack Smith will likely halt Trump’s federal criminal cases related to the 2020 election and classified documents, citing long-standing Department of Justice policy against prosecuting sitting presidents. While his Georgia election interference case faces its own delays, the New York hush money conviction remains a significant legal hurdle as Trump prepares to re-enter the Oval Office.
In a previous order delaying sentencing, Judge Merchan aptly described the case as “one that stands alone, in a unique place in this Nation’s history.” This latest delay and the ongoing debate over presidential immunity and the implications of Trump’s election victory only serve to reinforce the unprecedented nature of this legal and political drama, leaving the ultimate fate of Trump’s hush money conviction hanging in the balance.
