A new delay in former President Donald Trump's sentencing has stirred significant legal discussions.
According to Daily Caller, Judge Juan Merchan has postponed Trump's sentencing from July 11 to September 18 following a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley shared insights on the implications of this delay during a recent appearance on "The Story With Martha MacCallum." According to Turley, despite the postponement, it is improbable that Judge Merchan will dismiss the evidence against Trump.
The decision to delay the sentencing came in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling that grants presidents immunity from prosecution for "official acts" performed while in office. This ruling has prompted Trump's attorneys to argue that certain pieces of evidence, such as his tweets and public addresses, should not have been presented to the jury during his Manhattan trial.
Turley pointed out that Merchan's historical rulings against Trump suggest that he is not likely to order a new trial or dismiss the evidence despite the recent Supreme Court decision. The trial in May resulted in Trump being convicted on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records.
Legal experts are closely examining the Supreme Court's ruling, which states that presidents possess "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and "presumptive immunity" for all official acts. Trump's legal team contends that this ruling should invalidate some of the evidence used against him in court.
During his discussion, Turley emphasized that the defense might argue that the trial incorporated conversations with individuals like Hope Hicks, who provided their impressions of Trump in the Oval Office. These conversations, along with other testimonies, were used by the prosecution in their closing arguments.
Jonathan Turley elaborated on the defense's potential strategy:
The expectation is that Judge Merchan is not going to be inclined to order a new trial. The argument here is that you did indeed trip the wire during the trial because they incorporated conversations with people like Hope Hicks who gave her impressions about what the president was like in the Oval Office.
The defense is likely to claim that the inclusion of this evidence was significant, but it is uncertain how it influenced the jury's decision. Turley suggested that the prosecution might argue for a "harmless error" defense, asserting that the removal of this testimony would not have changed the trial's outcome due to the strength of the other evidence.
Turley explained that the prosecution's view is that the evidence against Trump was compelling enough to withstand scrutiny, even without the contested testimonies. However, he also noted that Judge Merchan's past decisions against Trump indicate that he is expected to rule similarly in this case.
Despite the delay in sentencing, Turley believes that Judge Merchan will eventually proceed with sentencing in September. The Supreme Court's ruling has added a layer of complexity to the case, but it does not necessarily mean that the evidence against Trump will be dismissed or that a new trial will be ordered.
Trump's attorneys continue to argue that the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity reinforces their stance that some evidence should not have been presented during the trial. They maintain that certain actions taken by Trump during his presidency fall under the category of "official acts" and should be protected from prosecution.
Judge Juan Merchan has delayed the sentencing of former President Donald Trump following a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity. Despite this delay, it is unlikely that evidence against Trump will be dismissed. Legal expert Jonathan Turley discussed the implications of this delay and emphasized that Merchan's historical rulings suggest he will not order a new trial. The Supreme Court's decision adds complexity to the case but does not necessarily change its direction. The sentencing is now set for September, with ongoing debates about presidential immunity and evidence admissibility.
