A New York judge on Monday denied a request by defense attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump to delay his imminent sentencing.
“This Court has considered Defendant’s arguments in support of his motion and finds that they are for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past,” wrote Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan as he rejected defense requests for a stay of the proceeding pending appeal.
Trump’s legal team filed for an automatic stay or a motion for immediate stay of the proceedings earlier on Monday, arguing that the judge no longer had the authority to sentence the former-turned-future president on presidential immunity grounds.
“The Court should vacate the sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, and suspend all further deadlines in the case until President Trump’s immunity appeals are fully and finally resolved, which should result in a dismissal of this case, which should have never been brought in the first place,” the defense urged in a 17-page filing.
In his ruling, Merchan said he had already rejected many of the arguments, including in denying the defense’s motion to vacate the verdict and dismiss the indictment, and most recently in his decision last week setting sentencing for Friday.
“Further, this Court finds that the authorities relied upon in the instant motion by the Defendant are for the most part, factually distinguishable from the actual record or legally inapplicable,” he added.
Prosecutors opposed the defense motion for a stay, arguing that appeals do not automatically trigger a pause and that Trump would not sustain any prejudice were his request denied.
While Trump’s defense team claimed their client would be unable to perform his official duties while the case is under appeal, prosecutors noted that Merchan had already indicated he would likely sentence Trump to unconditional discharge.
“There is no risk here of an ‘extended proceeding’ that impairs the discharge of defendant’s official duties—duties he does not possess before January 20, 2025, in any event,” the response reads.
“The balance of equities weighs heavily in the People’s favor given the strong public interest in prompt prosecution and the finality of criminal proceedings—interests that are particularly salient here in light of the jury’s guilty verdict,” prosecutors wrote.
Trump was originally scheduled to face sentencing in July, but Merchan adjourned the case multiple times in order for the parties to brief on various issues, including a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in July regarding the scope of presidential immunity as it pertains to official acts.
In their submission, the defense team claimed the sentencing was being “rushed,” but prosecutors said that contention was not supported by the record.
“Every adjournment of the sentencing date since then has been to accommodate defendant’s requests for more time— including more time for post-trial briefing and more time to get past the date of the presidential election,” the filing reads. “Far from rushing to sentencing, this Court has instead bent over backwards to give defendant ample time after the trial and before sentencing to fully litigate his various post-trial motions.”
Also on Monday, Trump’s defense team filed their notice of petition with the Appellate Division, First Department.
The Article 78 petition, brought against Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, asked the appeals court to find that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to deny Trump’s presidential immunity motions.
They asked to be heard on January 27.
A spokesperson for the Manhattan DA’s Office declined to comment on the decision.
Neither defense counsel nor a spokesperson for Trump immediately returned messages.
A jury found Trump guilty in May of 34 counts of falsifying business records, which prosecutors said was part of a scheme to suppress negative information about himself from voters during the 2016 presidential election.
He has denied any wrongdoing.
Trump is represented by Todd Blanche and Emil Bove of Blanche Law, and Susan Necheles and Gedalia Stern of Necheles Law.
