Trump's Hush Money Case Could End Without A Sentence, Prosecutors Propose
By: Alison Durkee (Forbes)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Alison DurkeeForbes StaffAlison is a senior news reporter covering US politics and legal news.FollowingDec 10, 2024,03:00pm EST
Topline
Manhattan prosecutors opposed President-elect Donald Trump's effort to have his conviction on 34 felony counts thrown out because of his presidential win, but said in a filing Tuesday they would be fine with his sentencing being delayed until after Trump leaves office—or just ending the case without him ever being sentenced at all.
Former President Donald Trump appears for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 28 ... [+] in New York City.
Getty Images
Key Facts
Trump is trying to have his conviction thrown out based on "presidential immunity," saying that the legal process against him has to end now that he's been elected president.
The Manhattan district attorney's office, which brought the case, said in a filing Tuesday it does not believe the charges should be thrown out and thinks Trump should still be sentenced, arguing Trump has no immunity now before he takes office, and that even when he's in the White House, that still doesn't "justify the extreme remedy of discarding the jury's unanimous guilty verdict and wiping out the already-completed phases of this criminal proceeding."
That being said, prosecutors said they agree that if Trump isn't sentenced by the time he takes office—as will likely be the case—they agree he should receive "accommodations" that keep him from facing the criminal proceedings while in the White House, but the court could find a way to keep his guilty verdict intact without disrupting his presidency or throwing out the verdict entirely.
One way would be to postpone Trump's sentencing until after he leaves office, prosecutors said, echoing an argument they'd made in a previous filing, meaning Trump would not be sentenced until at least 2029.
Another alternative would be to use a process courts have followed in the past when defendants have died before being sentenced, prosecutors proposed.
In that case, the verdict against Trump would stand but the case would end without him ever getting sentenced; instead, it would just be noted in the case's record "that the jury verdict removed the presumption of innocence; that defendant was never sentenced; and that his conviction was neither affirmed nor reversed on appeal because of presidential immunity."
What To Watch For
Judge Juan Merchan, who's overseeing the case, is still deliberating on whether to grant Trump's multiple requests to throw his conviction out. In addition to arguing his impending presidency should lead the case to be dismissed, Trump has also argued that it should be thrown out based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling giving him some immunity from criminal charges. Prosecutors have also opposed that request, saying the conduct at issue in the indictment isn't within the scope of his official duties, which, under the Supreme Court's ruling, means it can still be prosecuted. Even if some of the evidence in the case concerned official acts, prosecutors argued, their case was still strong enough for Trump to have been convicted without it. It's unclear when and how Merchan will rule, though it will likely be before Trump takes office. Even if Merchan does uphold the conviction and rule Trump could still be sentenced, however, with just weeks to go before Trump's inauguration, it's unlikely Trump's sentencing would take place at this point before he goes to the White House, given the short timeline.
Chief Critic
Trump's transition team has not yet responded to a request for comment on the DA office's filing, but Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and broadly decried the criminal cases against him as "witch hunts." The president-elect has broadly argued his election should nullify all the legal proceedings against him, and his spokesperson Steven Cheung previously praised Merchan's ruling postponing Trump's sentencing as a "decisive win" for the president-elect.
Key Background
Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in May following a weekslong trial, becoming the first sitting or former president to be convicted of a crime. He was indicted based on hush money payments his ex-attorney made to adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election, which Trump then reimbursed Cohen for through a series of checks paid throughout 2017. Prosecutors successfully argued those payments were falsely labeled as being for legal services. While Trump was initially scheduled to be sentenced in July, his lawyers managed to postpone the sentencing until after the election in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling granting him some immunity. The sentencing date was pushed to September and then until November 26, as Merchan ruled he would delay it until after the election in order to avoid any perception of political bias. The judge then put the sentencing on hold indefinitely in late November in order to give Trump time to argue for the verdict to be thrown out. The delay comes as Trump broadly managed to postpone his other criminal trials from taking place before the election, and as his two federal criminal cases have been formally dismissed.
Tangent
The only other criminal case against Trump that's still active is his criminal case in Georgia, where he faces charges tied to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Trump's lawyers are also seeking to have those charges dismissed due to Trump's election, but the court has not yet ruled on their request. Even if the case against Trump does stand, it's likely to be put on pause until after Trump leaves office.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion
No Fascism References, Memes, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
412 visitors
Gee, I wonder what changed the tune? Other than coming to one's senses
It was always about politics from the get go. The goal was a conviction on something, anything, legitimate or not.
After the election, the case was meaningless.
Let's wait and see if Trump tries to pardon himself first. Shall we?
It's a state case. A pardon would be meaningless.
We're talking Trump. Jurisdiction is meaningless to him. In fact he probably doesn't even know what it means.
The DA and Judge will ride this thing until the fundraising off of it drys up.
Then maybe they can sell gold colored shoes for some extra coin..
Well, at least Alvin Bragg doesn't get sullied by the affair. It's the Manhattan DA's office making the case now. Bragg wanted a felony conviction for anything to influence the election. And after all the biased press, twisted justice, and dishonest politics Bragg was repudiated by voters electing a convicted felon.
Does this mean Bragg can go back to not prosecuting real criminals? That seems to be where Bragg's talents lie.
You mean, like trump?
That's one opinion. Proving it seems to have been a problem for the Democrats and the left.
I'm not a lawyer, but I do like to play doctor from time to time.
If sentencing is held in abeyance thru either option, would that also prevent Trump from filing an appeal on the case? ie, if they follow the second alternative then the conviction would be held over Trump for the rest of his life with no possibility of appeal?
I believe so.
That's pretty harsh if true. As that option according to the seed is for defendants who have died before sentenced which is not what happens here. I wonder if that might open up the possibility for an appeal to SCOTUS on Sixth Amendment Rights. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer and do not know where this would go. It would play out over time, but I would like it to be finalized.
I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t appeal the conviction, even if he never gets sentenced. A felony conviction, on its own, is a kind of punishment. There are limits, for example, on voting, possessing a firearm, getting a passport, etc. Often, serving in public office is prohibited, but obviously not with the presidency (makes total sense. /s).
I wonder if he would bother, though, while he is president. None of the usual penalties will be enforced against him while he is president. Maybe after he leaves office? Maybe he pardons himself on the way out the door?
The problem is that without the imposition of a sentence (withheld adjudication) , it's not a "conviction".
Meaning, all these "judges" withholding sentencing don't have a "conviction" as the left wants everybody to believe.
Additionally withholding sentencing ( adjudication) still allows his free movement (eliminating that bullshit about not being able to leave the country), ownership of firearms, voting rights, etc.. Why? Because he's has not been "convicted"
You’re talking about an extradition law. If the defendant wants to flee from the process, that’s on him. The law referenced is about proving conviction for the purpose of extradition.
That’s not the current situation, here. I don’t think the state can withhold due process from a defendant ready to appear in court, without violating the Constitution. This presumes he wants to appeal. If he doesn’t care, then we don’t have an issue, unless the judge gets in the way.
So you are going to skip over everything else and focus on an example?
Not sure what you think I'm skipping. You referenced an extradition procedure. That's not what this is.
You may be thinking of a suspended sentence. However, even in the case of a suspended sentence, the defendant has been convicted, has the conviction on their record, and may be subject to a variety of restrictions or requirements. And in such a case, yes, they could still appeal the conviction.
Did you miss the 1st sentence of what I quoted that states "and imposition of sentence."
Ok, I have tried to explain to you that these are different situations. If you can’t or won’t understand that, I can’t help you. Your motivation in this seems political. Mine is definitely not, so it may be that I’m not going to give you the fight you seek.
The motivation is legal. As apparent by 5.2.1.
Ok, well, then I can’t help. You aren’t the first person to reject someone’s legal opinion. Good luck.
Skipping over the facts to focus isn't helping.
You're not actually saying anything. Three comments in a row have just been vague restatements or complaints. When you do throw out something, you don't weave it into an argument that logically supports a point.
Yes, I already explained why that's not relevant, and how it's a totally different situation. If you can't contribute something new, I'm done with this conversation.
It's all right there in 5.2.1. Quote, link, all of it. Don't like it, then take it up with the justice department.
No you didn't. You saw the example and twisted it into fit a narrative. Fact of the matter is:
Has the prosecution filed the needed petitions? My guess is no. But feel free to supply the links just like I have provided a link to the DoJ Manual.
Seems hard to continue to argue that the whole business is politically motivated when the prosecutor is prepared to dispense with sentencing.
Justice is broken when the rich and powerful don’t get sentenced on crimes for which they have been convicted.
it sure as shit is
What crimes? A reasonable and rational person would never conclude that statute of limitations expired misdemeanors could magically be transformed into felonies, over some bookkeeping classification errors. There is good reason to believe that this unethical political prosecution would be overturned on appeal.
Trump will never spend a day in jail or pay any atrocious fines. Time for the butt hurt progressives and their pathetic lackeys move on. Bragg's an abomination and should be tossed out.
This fantasy has been debunked so many times. I know I myself have explained it multiple times on this site and provided links. Why don’t you try Googling the issue? You might learn something, if you’re open to that process.
[✘]
He already has.
But a jury of his peers did...