NEW YORK — President-elect Donald Trump is expected to face sentencing in his hush money case this week after a New York appellate court judge denied his latest request to delay the proceedings. Judge Ellen Gesmer from the mid-level appellate court decided to reject Trump’s motion, which would have postponed the sentencing and paused the legal proceedings while he appeals last week’s ruling upholding the verdict against him.
As it stands, Trump’s sentencing is still set for Friday, although his legal team may seek intervention from other courts. They have been engaged in efforts to have a federal court take over the case, even suggesting that the matter could potentially reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The judge’s brief ruling did not elaborate on the grounds for her decision, but during an emergency hearing the previous day, she posed challenging questions to both the prosecution and Trump’s defense team. Notably, Trump did not attend the hearing.
This recent development follows the trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, denying Trump’s initial request to delay sentencing just a day prior. At Tuesday’s hearing, attorney Todd Blanche reiterated the defense’s position that Trump should be exempt from sentencing because, as president-elect, he should receive the same legal immunity as a sitting president. Gesmer pressed Blanche, asking if there was any indication that presidential immunity would extend to a president-elect, to which Blanche conceded that there has been no precedent for such a case.
Merchan has already dismissed the notion of immunity for a president-elect. Prosecutor Steven Wu pointed out that the principle of having one sitting president at a time contradicts this argument. Trump is scheduled to assume office on January 20. Blanche contended that proceeding with the case could jeopardize Trump’s transition into the presidency, which he labeled as crucial for national security interests.
When Gesmer questioned the prosecutors regarding this matter, they countered that Trump could participate in the sentencing process virtually. Wu also highlighted that Merchan had indicated he would likely impose no prison time, fines, or probation stemming from Trump’s conviction last May on multiple counts for falsifying business records. According to Wu, this approach would address any concerns that the defense might raise.
Blanche countered by suggesting that the judge’s anticipated leniency did not adequately alleviate their concerns about the implications for Trump’s presidency. He raised a hypothetical scenario, asking Gesmer whether the court would intervene if Merchan decided to impose even a short prison sentence.
If the sentencing occurs after Inauguration Day, issues of presidential immunity could arise, potentially delaying the process until Trump leaves office. Blanche argued that unless the case is dismissed outright, the ongoing appeals could have considerable repercussions for Trump’s abilities to govern.
Merchan had already denied Trump’s request last Friday to overturn his conviction and drop the case due to his upcoming return to the presidency, asserting that justice would best be served by moving forward with sentencing, which he suggested might involve an unconditional discharge — meaning closure without jail time, fines, or probation.
Manhattan prosecutors have expressed a strong desire for the sentencing to proceed as scheduled, citing significant public interest in swiftly resolving criminal matters. Trump’s conviction last May involved an alleged scheme to conceal a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the latter stages of the 2016 campaign, aimed at preventing public exposure of her claims of an affair with him. Trump has consistently denied her allegations and contends he has done nothing wrong.
Central to the case was how Trump handled the reimbursement to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who initially disbursed the payment to Daniels. The penalties associated with the conviction range from fines or probation to a maximum of four years in prison. Trump’s sentencing was originally set for July 11, but has already been rescheduled twice at the defense’s request. Following the election on November 5, Merchan postponed the sentencing yet again to allow both sides to deliberate on the case’s future.
