Donald Trump’s attorneys in New York requested on Monday that the prosecutor who presided over his calm money test reverse his faith and postpone his sentencing, which is scheduled for the following week.
According to the letter to Judge Juan M. Merchan, the judge cited the US Supreme Court’s earlier Monday decision and requested that the judge hold off on Trump’s sentencing while he weighs the great court’s decision and how it might affect the New York situation.
According to the attorneys, the Supreme Court’s decision confirmed a claim made earlier in the case that the defense should have been prevented from bringing in evidence that they claimed constituted established national acts.
Trump asserted in earlier court papers that he is unaffected by legal action for allegedly engaging in standard do while serving in office. His lawyers did not address that as a security in the quiet funds situation, but they did point out that some of the proof, including Trump’s tweets about former lawyer Michael Cohen, was from his administration and should have been thrown out of the case due to immunity protections.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office declined comment Monday evening.
The Supreme Court extended the delay in Trump’s legal action in the Washington legal case based on allegations he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election lost on Monday by ruling for the first time that past presidents have large immunity from prosecution.
In New York, Trump was found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying company documents as part of an alleged cover-up of a quiet cash transaction just before the 2016 presidential vote. On July 11, he is scheduled to be sentenced in the calm cash situation.
Merchan established a procedure in the days leading up to the test that required both edges to give him a one-page email outlining their arguments before filing longer court documents. He claimed that he did it to better control the docket and prevent him from getting a lot of massive paperwork.
A federal judge ruled that the claims at the center of the case did not “reflect in any way the President’s standard jobs” and did not “reflect in any way the color of the President’s standard jobs.”
According to US District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein,” the evidence increasingly suggests that the problem was a cover-up of an awkward event,” according to the decision.
