NEW YORK — In a noteworthy development, a judge announced on Friday that the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump regarding his hush money legal case is scheduled for January 10, which is just over a week before he is set to assume the presidency again. However, the judge suggested that incarceration is unlikely.
This situation places Trump in the unprecedented position of potentially being the first president to enter office after being convicted of felony offenses. Judge Juan M. Merchan, who oversaw Trump’s trial, indicated through a formal statement that he plans to impose what is termed an unconditional discharge. This means that while the conviction remains, the case will be resolved without any jail time, monetary penalties, or probation. Trump has the option to attend the sentencing hearing virtually if he so desires.
The judge dismissed Trump’s arguments for dismissing the verdict on the basis of presidential immunity or due to the upcoming term, emphasizing that “finality” in this matter serves justice best. He articulated his intent to balance Trump’s ability to govern free from encumbrance by the case against various other considerations, including a Supreme Court ruling concerning presidential immunity and the public’s expectation for equal treatment under the law, alongside the need to honor the jury’s decision.
Merchan ultimately concluded that the interests of justice as presented in the case outweighed the consideration of Trump’s presidential duties, declaring, “This court is simply not persuaded that the first factor outweighs the others at this stage of the proceeding.” On his Truth Social platform, Trump reacted strongly to the judge’s announcement, stating that if the ruling were to stand, it would signify “the end of the Presidency as we know it.” He reiterated his stance that the legal proceedings constituted a politically motivated assault orchestrated by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, without providing specifics regarding potential appeals or legal strategies.
Former Judge Diane Kiesel noted that under New York law, Merchan’s ruling cannot be appealed; however, Trump may still attempt to pursue an appeal regarding his conviction, which is not possible until after sentencing. It is important to highlight that Trump, who faces a conviction for falsifying business records, cannot pardon himself, as the case was tried at the state level. Trump is set to take office on January 20, marking him as the first ex-president to be convicted of a crime and the first convicted individual to be elected president.
In May, Trump was found guilty on 34 counts related to an alleged scheme intended to cover up a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the closing days of his initial presidential campaign. The payment aimed to silence her assertions about a past intimate encounter with Trump, who maintains that her claims are untrue and that he committed no wrongdoing. The core of the case revolved around how Trump accounted for reimbursing his former attorney, Michael Cohen, for the payment made to Daniels. Cohen commented on Merchan’s decision, calling it “judicious and appropriate.”
With his conviction, Trump now faces possible penalties that could range from fines and probation to a maximum of four years in prison. Initially, sentencing was scheduled for July 11 but was postponed twice at the defense’s request. Following Trump’s election on November 5, Judge Merchan delayed the proceedings again to allow both sides to evaluate the next steps.
Trump’s legal team urged the judge to dismiss the case, arguing it could lead to unconstitutional disruptions for the new president’s functions. The prosecutors acknowledged the need for some accommodations for Trump’s forthcoming presidency yet insisted that the conviction should remain intact. They proposed several alternatives, including pausing the case during his term or ensuring that he would not face jail time. Options mentioned also involved officially closing the case while noting the conviction and pending appeal—a unique notion inspired by procedures in some state courts when defendants pass away during ongoing appeals.
Judge Merchan determined that Trump’s current position as president-elect does not confer the same legal protections as those of an incumbent president. He remarked that dismissing the case would be a “drastic” measure that could undermine the rule of law in significant ways. Previously, Trump’s legal team sought to challenge the conviction in light of a Supreme Court ruling that granted presidents broad immunity from criminal charges. At the time of the hush money payment made to Daniels in October 2016, Trump was a private citizen; however, he became president when Cohen was reimbursed, and Cohen testified to having discussed the repayment with Trump in the Oval Office.
Trump’s attorneys argued that the jury was presented with evidence that should have been protected by presidential immunity, an assertion that the judge subsequently dismissed. The election raised additional complexities regarding the case, leading Trump to seek the relocation of the trial to federal court, where he might invoke immunity. However, federal judges denied his requests, which Trump sought to appeal.
Among Trump’s multiple legal challenges, the hush money case was the sole matter that reached trial. Following the election, special counsel Jack Smith concluded two federal cases against Trump—one concerning efforts to reverse the results of the 2020 election, and another regarding the alleged mishandling of classified documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate. A separate state-level case involving election interference in Georgia is currently stalled because an appeals court has displaced prosecutor Fani Willis from the case.
Trump’s attorneys argued that the dismissal of federal charges should similarly lead to the termination of the New York hush money case. Nonetheless, Judge Merchan found that this argument lacked merit, indicating that the state case was at a “vastly” different procedural stage.
