Justice Juan Merchan in Manhattan on Monday said Trump’s lawyers failed to offer valid reasons for delaying the sentencing. Trump had requested to put the hearing on hold while he asks an intermediate appeals court to overturn two of Merchan’s recent rulings, including one last week, that rejected Trump’s arguments to throw out the verdict.
Merchan, who has indicated that he will not sentence Trump to any time behind bars, said their arguments were repetitive.
“This Court has considered Defendant’s arguments in support of his motion and finds that they are for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past,” Merchan said in his written opinion.
Trump has said he would appear virtually rather than in person for the sentencing on Friday, according to prosecutors.
A Manhattan jury in May found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal payments to an adult film star before the 2016 election. He is appealing two decisions by Merchan that rejected his argument for vacating the verdict on presidential immunity grounds. The judge held that a president-elect has no such immunity.
In seeking to overturn his conviction, Trump has argued that the case will harm his ability to serve as president after the November election and that some evidence was improperly presented to the jury.
“The American people elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate that demands an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and all of the remaining Witch Hunts,” Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump, said in a statement.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who filed the case, argued for the request to be denied, saying that Trump has repeatedly sought sentencing delays.
With jail off the table, Merchan said last week that a sentence of an “unconditional discharge” was the most viable solution, meaning the 78-year-old incoming president would face no real penalty other than having the conviction remain on his record. In theory Trump could have faced up to four years in prison, though the judge said prosecutors already conceded that wasn’t a “practicable recommendation.”
Bragg also said that the purpose of an immunity challenge is to stop a trial from going forward, while Trump’s ended months ago.
“As to the only remaining proceeding — the January 10 sentencing — the court has already stated its intent to impose the lowest possible sentence authorized by law: an unconditional discharge,” the DA said in a court filing Monday.
Trump’s lawyers said it was irrelevant that the judge would not impose a sentence of incarceration, because any sentence at all — even unconditional discharge — would be unconstitutional.
“While it is indisputable that the fabricated charges in this meritless case should have never been brought, and at this point could not possibly justify a sentence more onerous than that, no sentence at all is appropriate based on numerous legal errors — including legal errors directly relating to presidential immunity that President Trump will address in the forthcoming appeals,” Trump’s lawyers said in the filing.
Last month, Merchan rejected a separate request to dismiss the hush money case, based on Trump’s arguments that the trial was tainted by testimony and other evidence that wouldn’t have been allowed under a US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity that was handed down in a different case last year.
Last week’s decision addressed broader claims that the case couldn’t move forward in light of his win in the November election. The appeal Trump is filing will cover both of the decisions related to presidential immunity.
Under New York law, a defendant can’t appeal their conviction until after they are sentenced, which Merchan last week cited as one reason to go forward with Trump’s sentencing. But Trump argues that unless the verdict is tossed out, he’ll be forced to argue the appeal while he’s in office in violation of his presidential immunity.
“Forcing President Trump to prosecute, or even defend, a criminal appeal during his term of office — an appeal that could result in a remand for another criminal trial during President Trump’s term — is itself a clear-cut violation of sitting-President immunity,” his lawyer said in the filing.
