A conviction related to hush money payments brings uncertainty to President-elect Donald Trump's upcoming sentencing date.
According to Newsweek, legal experts are divided on whether Trump's November 26 sentencing for falsifying business records will proceed, with some predicting Supreme Court intervention while others expect the case to continue with modifications.
The case stems from Trump's conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to payments made to former adult film actor Stormy Daniels. A jury delivered the guilty verdict on May 30, and New York Superior Court Judge Juan Merchan is scheduled to oversee the sentencing. The case has drawn significant attention not only for its implications on Trump's legal standing but also for its unprecedented nature involving a president-elect.
Syracuse University law professor Greg Germain expressed strong doubts about the sentencing proceeding as planned. He emphasized the Department of Justice's established guidelines regarding presidential prosecutions. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg had previously indicated his willingness to comply with these federal guidelines, which explicitly prohibit various legal actions against sitting presidents.
New York University law professor Stephen Gillers offered a contrasting perspective on the case's trajectory. He maintained that state prosecutions operate independently of federal guidelines. Gillers suggested that while the case will continue, the judge may opt to either postpone sentencing until 2029 or impose immediate penalties with varying implementation timelines.
Trump's legal team has been actively pursuing alternative venues, specifically requesting a transfer to federal court. This strategic move aims to establish grounds for claiming presidential immunity, as detailed in their court filings. The New York appeals court has been deliberating on this transfer request, adding another layer of complexity to the legal proceedings.
The May trial featured remarkable testimony from Stormy Daniels, who provided explicit details about her alleged encounter with Trump. Judge Merchan notably expressed surprise at the defense team's lack of objections to certain testimony details. The proceedings included particularly intimate revelations about the alleged Nevada hotel room encounter.
Defense attorney Susan Necheles's strategic decisions during the trial raised eyebrows from the bench. Judge Merchan specifically questioned the defense's passive approach to potentially prejudicial testimony. The trial's dramatic narrative included detailed accounts that went largely unchallenged by Trump's legal team.
The payments at the center of the case allegedly totaled $150,000, made to prevent Daniels from discussing the alleged encounter during the 2016 presidential campaign. These transactions form the basis of the business record falsification charges that led to Trump's conviction.
Legal experts have presented divergent views on potential Supreme Court involvement. According to Germain:
The hush money case needs to be stayed. If Judge Merchan tries to proceed with it, or even sets it for sentencing, the Department of Justice will intervene and ultimately the Supreme court will slap him down.
The complexity of the case is further highlighted by Gillers's assessment:
The cash money case is a state prosecution and it will continue. However, the judge may either delay sentencing until 2029 or impose a sentence now. If the sentence includes a period of incarceration, it will be delayed until 2029. If it is a fine, it will be stayed until Trump has exhausted his appeals.
The unprecedented nature of this case presents significant challenges for the judicial system. The convergence of state prosecution authority and federal presidential protections creates a complex legal landscape that courts must navigate carefully. The timing of the sentencing, coupled with Trump's president-elect status, adds another dimension to these already complicated proceedings.
The resolution of this case could establish important precedents for future cases involving elected officials. Whether through Supreme Court intervention or state court proceedings, the outcome will likely influence how similar cases are handled in the future. The legal community continues to watch closely as these various factors intersect in this historically significant case.
