Donald Trump is urging the judge in his New York hush money case to postpone his sentencing until after the November presidential election. In a letter made public on Thursday, Todd Blanche, Trump’s attorney, argued that sentencing the former president and current Republican nominee on the scheduled date of September 18—just weeks before Election Day—could be seen as election interference. Blanche also noted that the delay would provide Trump with time to consider his next steps following Judge Juan M. Merchan’s expected September 16 ruling on the defense’s request to overturn the verdict and dismiss the case based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent presidential immunity decision.
“There is no justification for rushing this process,” Blanche wrote.
The letter was sent on Wednesday, shortly after Merchan denied the defense’s latest motion for recusal. In the letter, Blanche reiterated the defense’s claims of a conflict of interest, pointing to the judge’s daughter’s work as a Democratic political consultant, including her role in Kamala Harris’s 2020 presidential campaign. Harris is now Trump’s opponent in the upcoming election.
Blanche argued that adjourning the sentencing until after the election would “reduce, even if not eliminate, concerns regarding the integrity of any future proceedings.”
Merchan, who has maintained confidence in his ability to remain fair and impartial, has not yet ruled on the request to delay sentencing. The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, which prosecuted Trump’s case, has not commented.
In May, Trump was convicted of falsifying business records to hide a 2016 payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels to ensure her silence about an alleged 2006 affair. Prosecutors characterized the payment as part of a broader effort by Trump to prevent voters from learning damaging information during his first presidential campaign.
Donald Trump contends that all allegations against him are baseless, the business records in question were accurately maintained, and the entire case is a politically motivated attempt to undermine his current presidential campaign. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, brought the charges.
Trump’s defense maintained that the payments in question were legitimate legal expenses and were properly recorded.
Falsifying business records carries a potential sentence of up to four years in prison. However, other possible outcomes include probation, a fine, or a conditional discharge, which would require Trump to avoid further legal trouble to prevent additional penalties. Notably, Trump is the first former president to be convicted of a crime.
While Trump has vowed to appeal, this process cannot begin until after sentencing.
In a prior communication, Judge Juan M. Merchan scheduled September 18 for either sentencing or any other relevant proceedings. However, in seeking a delay, Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, argued that the brief interval between the scheduled immunity ruling on September 16 and the sentencing two days later would be unjust to Trump.
Blanche pointed out that, in preparation for sentencing, prosecutors would be submitting their recommendations even as Merchan deliberates on whether to dismiss the case based on immunity grounds. Should the dismissal be denied, Trump would require sufficient time to explore state and federal appellate options, Blanche noted.
The recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity limits the prosecution of former presidents for official acts and constrains the use of such acts as evidence in cases involving unofficial conduct. Trump’s legal team argues that, in light of this ruling, the jury in the hush money case should not have considered testimony from former White House staffers regarding Trump’s reactions to media reports about the Stormy Daniels payment.
The case centers around Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records related to hush money payments made to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. The defense argues that rushing the sentencing disregards the potential legal complexities and appellate options. Despite this request, the judge, who has already postponed sentencing once, may be unlikely to grant another delay.
