Manhattan Judge Denies Trump’s Request to Halt Sentencing in Hush Money Case

A Manhattan judge has denied U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s request to halt sentencing in his hush money case while he appeals the ruling that upheld his conviction. This decision clears the way for sentencing to proceed on Friday, just over a week before Trump’s inauguration.

Judge Juan M. Merchan rejected Trump’s plea to delay the proceedings indefinitely while his legal team appeals the conviction in a state appellate court.

Trump, who faces sentencing for 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, is poised to become the first president to take office while convicted of a crime.

Despite the setback, Trump’s legal team retains the option of requesting the appellate court to intervene and postpone the sentencing.

Meanwhile, they have informed the court that Trump will appear at the sentencing via video link rather than in person, citing the complexities of the presidential transition process.

Last week, Judge Merchan dismissed Trump’s attempt to have the case thrown out on the grounds of his imminent assumption of the presidency. The judge, however, indicated that he is unlikely to impose any punitive measures despite the gravity of the charges.

Following Merchan’s ruling, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, calling the decision “the end of the Presidency as we know it” if allowed to stand.

In addition to the ongoing appeal of the conviction, Trump’s lawyers are challenging Judge Merchan’s earlier refusal to dismiss the case on the basis of presidential immunity.

Although they filed paperwork in the appellate division of the state’s trial court on Monday, no hearing dates have been set.

The charges stemmed from Trump’s attempt to disguise reimbursements for a $130,000 hush money payment to an adult film star as legal expenses.

Trump pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing. His lawyers said that filing an appeal should halt the criminal proceedings in his New York case.

The sentencing had been delayed repeatedly by the 2024 presidential election and Trump’s attempt to have the case thrown out based on a claim of presidential immunity. Justice Merchan ultimately rejected the immunity argument in December.

On 3 January, Justice Merchan issued an order saying he would move ahead with the sentencing before Trump takes office on 20 January, but made clear he would not consider any custodial term.

He indicated he would instead issue a sentence of an “unconditional discharge”, which means no prison, fine or probation.

Justice Merchan ordered Trump to appear virtually or in-person for the hearing.

Steven Cheung, spokesman for Trump’s presidential transition, reiterated his argument that the prosecution was unlawful.

He said in a statement: “The American People elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate that demands an immediate end to the political weaponisation of our justice system and all of the remaining Witch Hunts.”

Trump’s team has not publicly commented on whether the president-elect will be in court this Friday.

But in its response on Monday afternoon to the request for a stay, the Manhattan district attorney’s office referred to the “defendant’s decision to appear for sentencing virtually instead of in person”.

The reference to a virtual hearing was repeated again several pages later.

In the response, the district attorney asked the judge to deny Trump’s request for an immediate stay of his sentencing, and argued he would not be prejudiced by such a decision.

The weeks after the election featured a flurry of legal filings from both Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case, and Trump’s legal team.

Bragg’s office had previously indicated that they would not oppose delaying Trump’s sentencing until after he finishes his term in office, four years from now.

But after Justice Merchan decided to move ahead with the sentencing, Bragg asked the judge to proceed with sentencing on Friday.

In his order last week, Justice Merchan wrote that “it is this court’s firm belief that only by bringing finality to this matter” would the legal quandaries at play be resolved.

However, the judge left the door open to further Trump legal challenges, writing that he “must be permitted to avail himself of every available appeal”.