Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Supreme Court rejects Trump’s attempt to stop sentencing in secret money case


The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Trump’s last-minute attempt to stay his Friday sentencing in his hush money criminal case.

The president-elect had urged the high court to consider whether he was entitled to an automatic stay of his sentence, but the justices rejected the request by 5-4.

Trump was convicted of falsifying records to disguise reimbursements of a $130,000 hush payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels as legal expenses in 2016.

Judge Juan Merchán, who is overseeing the case, indicated in a recent ruling that he will not consider a prison sentence for Trump.

Three lower New York courts had rejected Trump’s attempted delay before the Supreme Court made a final decision Thursday night to allow the sentencing to be handed down as scheduled.

The judges denied Trump’s request because they believed his concerns could be addressed during an appeal.

They also wrote that the burden of attending a sentencing was “insubstantial.”

Trump’s lawyers had also asked the Supreme Court to consider whether presidents-elect had immunity from criminal prosecution.

Manhattan prosecutors had urged the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s petition, arguing that there was a “compelling public interest” in upholding the sentence and that there was “no basis for such intervention.”

Following the jury’s guilty verdict in May 2024, Trump was initially scheduled to be sentenced in July, but his lawyers successfully persuaded Judge Merchan to delay sentencing on three separate occasions.

Last week, Judge Merchan declared that sentencing would move forward on January 10, just days before Trump is sworn in again as president.

The days since have seen an avalanche of appeals and court filings from Trump’s lawyers trying to avoid sentencing.

But, in quick succession, New York appeals courts rejected the offers.

Finally, on Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The court should stay the proceedings “to avoid grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government,” they wrote.

The court’s 6-3 conservative majority had handed Trump a big victory last year, when it ruled that American presidents had immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” performed in office.

That decision destroyed a federal prosecution against Trump on charges of illegal interference in the outcome of the 2020 election, which he denied and pleaded not guilty.

But since his re-election, Trump’s lawyers have tried to persuade a series of judges that those presidential immunity protections should also apply to an elected president in this Manhattan criminal case.

Manhattan prosecutors argued in their own brief to the Supreme Court that Trump’s “claim for extraordinary immunity is not supported by any decision of any court.”

“It is axiomatic that there is only one president at a time,” prosecutors wrote.

Separately, a group of former public officials and jurists submitted an amicus brief (actually a letter of support) to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to reject Trump’s “attempt to avoid accountability.”



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *