Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office has decided not to oppose former President Donald Trump's request to delay his sentencing for his hush-money conviction until after the November election. The final decision now rests with New York Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan.
In a letter dated Aug. 16, Bragg's office stated that they defer to the Court on the appropriate post-trial schedule to allow for adequate time to address Trump's motion while ensuring a timely sentencing process. The letter, signed by Bragg's assistant district attorneys, including a former Biden Justice Department official, Matthew Colangelo, was made public on Monday.
Trump's lawyers, in a letter made public on Thursday, argued that sentencing Trump as scheduled on Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, would constitute election interference. They requested a delay in the sentencing until after the election to allow Trump time to consider his next steps following Merchan's expected ruling on Sept. 16 regarding the defense's request to overturn the verdict and dismiss the case based on the U.S. Supreme Court's July ruling on presidential immunity.
Bragg's office responded by highlighting that the current question before the Court pertains to the admissibility of trial evidence, not the issue of immunity from prosecution. They expressed readiness to appear for sentencing on any date set by the Court.
Trump's campaign spokesman called the case an 'Election Interference Witch Hunt' and urged for its dismissal in line with the Supreme Court's mandate. Trump's lawyers reiterated their argument for delaying the sentencing to avoid potential issues regarding the integrity of future proceedings.
Election Day is set for Nov. 5, with early voting in many states starting around Trump's scheduled Sept. 18 sentencing date. Judge Merchan, who has affirmed his commitment to impartiality, has yet to rule on the delay request.
Trump was convicted in May for falsifying business records related to a payment to Stormy Daniels in 2016. Prosecutors portrayed the payment as an attempt to conceal damaging information during Trump's first presidential campaign. Trump denies the allegations and views the case as a political attack.
The Supreme Court's recent immunity ruling limits prosecutions of former presidents for official acts and restricts the use of official acts as evidence of unofficial actions' illegality. Trump's lawyers argue that jurors in the hush money case should not have been exposed to such evidence.
