New York Judge Denies Trump’s Bid to Delay Sentencing

NEW Former U.S. President Donald Trump in the Manhattan Criminal Court on April 18, 2024, in New York City. Jabin Botsford-Pool/Getty Images

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan has rejected President-elect Donald Trump’s attempt to delay a previously scheduled Jan. 10 sentencing date over his conviction for falsifying business records.

“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 decision on Jan. 6.

In a filing submitted earlier that day, Trump’s attorneys argued that the president-elect’s pursuit of an appeal meant proceedings in the court should be automatically stayed.

“In the alternative, even if such a stay were discretionary, the court should grant such a stay,” the filing read.

Trump’s request was made just days after Merchan’s Jan. 3 decision to reject Trump’s request to dismiss the case.

Merchan said in his Jan. 3 order that he wasn’t inclined to impose a prison term on the president-elect.

Citing concerns about presidential immunity, he also said that “a sentence of unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow the defendant to pursue his appellate options.”

The filings underscore tension surrounding Trump’s legal battles before his inauguration on Jan. 20, as well as differing interpretations of how presidential immunity functions.

The Supreme Court clarified the scope of immunity last year when it held that presidents enjoy certain levels of immunity from criminal prosecution. That decision came in response to an appeal from Trump’s election interference case, which was eventually dismissed based on a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo stating that the prosecution of sitting presidents violated the Constitution.

Trump had argued that both the Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States and DOJ’s policy should lead Merchan to dismiss the case. Merchan disagreed, prompting Trump’s appeal.

Trump’s attorneys argued that the Supreme Court’s decision contained language that mandated an automatic stay of proceedings until the underlying immunity issues were resolved.

“Due to the fact that further criminal proceedings are automatically stayed by operation of federal constitutional law, the Court will lack authority to proceed with sentencing,” they said on Jan. 6.

In December 2024, Merchan rejected Trump’s various immunity-related objections to the evidence used during trial.

He said that Trump waited too long or failed to preserve objections to evidence and that information related to both preserved and unpreserved arguments did not receive protection under the doctrine of presidential immunity.

“This Court ... finds that the evidence related to the preserved claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Merchan wrote in his opinion.

He also said that Trump attempted to present a novel theory of presidential immunity for presidents-elect and that current precedent doesn’t require the case dismissed.