No immunity decision in Trump’s hush money case as prosecutors weigh how to proceed
NEW YORK - A judge delayed his decision expected Tuesday on whether to toss out Donald Trump’s 34 felony convictions in Manhattan, as lawyers for the president-elect argue that his return to the White House means the verdict should be set aside, and prosecutors say they need time to decide how they want to proceed.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan set a Nov. 19 deadline for prosecutors to convey “your view of appropriate steps going forward,” according to a court document made public Tuesday.
That means prosecutors have a week to explain how they hope to address the situation of a convicted but not yet sentenced felon being elected to the highest office in the land, including whether they want to keep the verdict intact and proceed with sentencing that is scheduled for Nov. 26.
The New York indictment, on charges of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment ahead of the 2016 election, was one of four levied against Trump last year as he again ran for president. His legal team successfully delayed the others with a series of sometimes long-shot appeals.
Trump’s election victory has now essentially torpedoed the two federal cases against him, and made it unlikely that a second state case in Georgia will proceed. Trump’s lawyers had already challenged the New York verdict based on a Supreme Court ruling a month later that greatly expanded presidential immunity. Since the election last week, they have expanded that effort, saying that it would be “in the interests of justice” to end the hush money case given recent events.
The New York jury’s late-May decision of guilty on all counts meant that Trump, 78, faced up to four years in prison, though some legal analysts thought it was unlikely he would be incarcerated because of his age and lack of a prior criminal record.
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo wrote in an email to the court Sunday that the Manhattan district attorney’s office was considering the recent change in circumstances stemming from Trump’s election win. Colangelo asked for a delay in the proceedings so the office could “consider a number of arguments based on the impact on this proceeding from the results of the Presidential election.”
Depending on the prosecution’s proposed plan, there could be further discussion over how the case should proceed or whether it should be terminated. It is rare for a judge to interfere with a jury’s verdict or for prosecutors to try to get one overturned, but recent events make it clear that the district attorney acknowledges the extraordinary nature of the situation.
Trump attorney Emil Bove, in the same email exchange, cited Trump’s election as new grounds for a dismissal of the case. “There are strong reasons for the requested stay, and eventual dismissal of the case in the interests of justice,” Bove wrote.
It was not clear how prosecutors would address the jury’s verdict, which was reached after a six-week trial this year. The discussion on how to proceed was initiated by Trump’s attorneys, and the email record shows prosecutors were on board with delaying any decisions.
Merchan was supposed to issue a long-awaited finding Tuesday, determining whether a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity should have been applied to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against Trump.
Trump was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in May for covering up the nature of a $130,000 payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election.
The delay Tuesday further throws into question whether Trump will be sentenced Nov. 26. Trump’s advisers believe the order from Merchan pauses the proceeding while prosecutors decide their intentions. The order grants “a stay of the current deadlines,” which Trump’s side reads to include the sentencing.
“It is now abundantly clear that Americans want an immediate end to the weaponization of our justice system, including this case, which should have never been filed, so we can, as President Trump said in his historic victory speech, unify our country and work together for the betterment of our nation,” Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said in a statement.
New York litigator and appellate lawyer Mark Zauderer of the law firm Dorf Nelson & Zauderer LLP said the post-election landscape has changed the calculus for Bragg over the viability of the case’s future.
“With the president’s election, [Bragg] has to evaluate his political capital because he’s likely to face a barrage of legal arrows in state and/or possibly federal court if he goes forward,” Zauderer said. “I think there’s a high probability that at the end of the day he’s going to wave a white flag.”
Special counsel Jack Smith is believed to be winding down a pair of federal cases his office brought against Trump for alleged election obstruction and illegally keeping classified government records in his personal residence and club after leaving office.
Trump was expected to end those prosecutions himself once in power, but no president has the authority to shut down a state court matter such as the Bragg case.