NEW YORK >> Manhattan prosecutors left the politically fraught decision of when to sentence Donald Trump in his criminal hush-money case to a judge, declining to endorse or oppose the former president’s request to postpone until after the November election.

The sentencing is currently set for Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, when Trump, now a felon, will square off for the presidency against Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump had asked to postpone the sentencing until after the election partly so he had more time to challenge his conviction.

In a letter to the judge overseeing the case, Justice Juan M. Merchan, prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office acknowledged the existing schedule posed some challenges. But the prosecutors also disputed many of Trump’s arguments for delaying his sentencing and said they were “prepared to appear for sentencing” at any date the judge chooses.

“The people defer to the court on the appropriate post-trial schedule that allows for adequate time” for Trump to challenge his conviction, “while also pronouncing sentence without unreasonable delay,” the prosecutors wrote in the letter, dated Aug. 16 and released Monday.

The district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, appeared to strike a middle ground in hopes of navigating around a partisan backlash so close to Election Day.

Had Bragg opposed a postponement, Trump would have accused him of meddling in the election. But explicitly consenting to Trump’s delay tactics might have alienated Bragg’s liberal Manhattan base as it demands accountability for the former president, who was convicted in May of falsifying business records to conceal a sex scandal.

The decision now rests squarely in the hands of Merchan, a no-nonsense veteran judge who has shown little patience for Trump’s many maneuvers to drag out the case. Merchan has already postponed the sentencing once at Trump’s request, and it is unclear whether he will do so again. It could take Merchan a week or more to rule, and one person with knowledge of the matter said he might not decide until early September.

If he delayed the sentencing past Election Day, it would be consequential. Voters would head to the polls knowing that Trump is a felon — a jury convicted him on all 34 felony counts — but not whether he will face time behind bars.

Trump faces up to four years in prison, though Merchan could impose a shorter sentence or only probation.

Even if the judge grants a delay, it could be brief, lasting only a couple of weeks. Or he could hold the sentencing during the presidential transition period later this year.

If Trump wins the election, Merchan could postpone any punishment to be served after Trump’s term in office expires. A sitting president cannot be prosecuted, let alone incarcerated. But Trump could not pardon himself in the Manhattan case, since the presidential pardon power does not extend to state crimes.

Trump’s attempt to reschedule the sentencing coincides with his recent political struggles. Harris’ entry into the presidential race a month ago has upended the campaign and appears to have erased the former president’s lead in the polls.

In a letter filed with the judge last week, Trump’s lawyers implied that sentencing him just weeks before Election Day on Nov. 5 could improperly influence voters. The lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, argued that waiting until after the election would let the court “reduce, even if not eliminate, issues regarding the integrity of any future proceedings.”

They also argued that the current date could compromise Trump’s efforts to challenge his conviction, an effort that hinges on a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court granting him broad immunity for official actions as president. Trump’s lawyers have asked Merchan to throw out the charges, citing the Supreme Court ruling, and the judge has promised to rule on that request Sept. 16.

The defense lawyers have lamented that tight timeline, arguing that the decision coming just two days before sentencing might prevent them from appealing Merchan’s ruling should he deny their request to throw out the case.

In the letter released Monday, prosecutors acknowledged that the existing schedule could pose some complications.

“Significant public safety and logistical steps by multiple agencies are necessary to prepare for court appearances in this matter,” the prosecutors wrote.

In a footnote, the prosecutors also implied that they expected an appeals court to grant Trump at least a brief delay.

Still, the prosecutors disputed Trump’s other claims, including that their recommendation for his sentence would be publicly released before the judge ruled on his immunity argument. Bragg’s recommendation would be sealed, they said.

The prosecutors have already forcefully opposed immunity for Trump, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ruling has “no bearing on this prosecution.” Trump’s cover-up of a sex scandal, they noted, was unrelated to his official acts as president.

If Merchan grants Trump’s request, it would mark the second time that the sentencing has been rescheduled.

After Trump was found guilty in May, his lawyers requested that his sentencing, originally scheduled for July 11, be delayed to allow Merchan to consider whether to overturn the conviction based on the Supreme Court ruling. When prosecutors did not oppose the delay, Merchan moved the sentencing to Sept. 18.

Seeking delays is one of Trump’s most battle-tested legal strategies — he has routinely pushed for postponements in his four criminal cases.

He succeeded in delaying his trial by three weeks so his lawyers could review newly disclosed evidence from federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. But several other attempts to postpone it were unsuccessful, including three emergency appeals denied by a state’s appellate court the week before the trial.

The strategy has paid off even more in Trump’s other criminal cases.

Two of them — in Washington and in Georgia, where Trump is accused of plotting to subvert democracy by refusing to accept his 2020 defeat — are delayed indefinitely. (The Supreme Court’s immunity ruling stems from the Washington case.)

Separately, a federal judge in Florida dismissed charges against Trump for mishandling classified documents.

In Manhattan, Merchan has steadily pushed the case forward.

After a seven-week trial, a jury convicted Trump of falsifying records to hide a simmering sex scandal during his 2016 presidential campaign.

The case stemmed from a hush-money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels that Trump’s fixer made shortly before the election. The jury found that when Trump repaid the fixer, Michael Cohen, he approved plans to lie on paperwork to hide the nature of the reimbursement.

Daniels and Cohen both testified, which enraged Trump, who also clashed with Merchan. He recently mounted a third bid to remove the judge, who the former president claims is biased against him. Each time, the judge has declined to step aside.

“Stated plainly, defendant’s arguments are nothing more than a repetition of stale and unsubstantiated claims,” Merchan wrote in his latest ruling.

The district attorney’s office echoed that position in the letter released Monday, saying that “false claims of a potential conflict that have already been rejected over and over” did not merit further consideration.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2024 The New York Times Company