The Democrat prosecutor who presided over the fake New York legal situation against Donald Trump insists that the president-elect make an appearance for sentencing on Friday, just ten days before Trump takes the oath of office.  ,
In an 18-page judgment he released on Friday, Judge Juan Merchan ordered the January 10, 2025 punishment reading to go ahead, and on Monday, Trump’s legal team filed a two-fold activity for a stay. Judge Merchan rejected the president-elect’s request to revoke the jury’s verdict and ignore the 38-count grand jury’s indictment against Trump in connection with payments made to Stormy Daniels in that judgment.
Trump’s motion first argued that the proceedings against him were instantly stayed while his pending appeal involving presidential immunity was pending. Trump’s legal team argued in Monday’s Action to Stay that no further proceedings may be pursued until an appealing court resolved the issue of resistance, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling last expression regarding political resistance.
Second, and alternatively, attorneys for the president-elect argued that even if a stay were not required under federal law, Judge Merchan should stay the proceedings under New York law.
Unsurprisingly, by day’s end on Monday, Judge Merchan had denied Trump’s request for a stay. A perfunctory two-page order ordered the denial, and Judge Merchan reasoned that a stay was inappropriate because Trump was only repeating the points he had previously made. The Manhattan trial judge then came to the conclusion that the precedent Trump used to seek a stay was either distinguishable or inapplicable.
If Trump’s legal team has not yet requested a stay from the New York appellate court as of the time of publication, it will most likely do so. And in its request for a stay, Trump’s attorneys will highlight much of detail they included in the petition they filed Monday in the appellate court, seeking an order holding that D. A. Bragg and Judge Merchan’s” continued maintenance of criminal proceedings are unlawful, unconstitutional, and in excess of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction”. ( The” Supreme Court” referenced here is the name of Judge Merchan’s New York trial court. )
Under New York law, that petition, technically called an Article 78 petition, is the mechanism by which Trump can challenge Bragg’s authority to prosecute him and Judge Merchan’s authority to continue the criminal proceedings. Prior to the conclusion of the case, which would only occur after Judge Merchan sentenced Trump, a party can challenge the authority of a prosecutor or court under Article 78.
Trump argued in his Article 78 petition that D. A. Bragg presented evidence to the grand jury in opposition to Supreme Court precedent regarding presidential immunity, which included evidence that Trump had allegedly committed while the 45th president. Trump’s attorneys also emphasized in the petition that the trial evidence that the Manhattan prosecutor presented to the jury was related to official actions that Trump took while in office. Trump’s attorneys argue that both the conviction and the indictment must be thrown because the Supreme Court’s ruling in the presidential immunity case forbids the use of such evidence.
Additionally, Trump’s legal team contends that the D.A. and the trial judge lack the authority to forcefully delay the sentencing hearing because Trump’s current duties as president-elect are considered to be presidential duties.
These same assertions are likely to be repeated in any motion Trump submits to the appellate court for a stay. And it is likely they will resonate with the court of appeals, both legally and pragmatically.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case involving presidential immunity, Trump’s claim that the grand jury, not the jury, should have been given access to evidence related to his official actions is persuasive. However, the practicality of the situation is likely to spur prudence, and prudence in this case would be to stay the lower court proceedings. The New York appellate court is also unsure of how to apply the presidential immunity precedent in this case.
Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press. She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge for nearly 25 years. Former full-time university professor, Cleveland teaches adjunct occasionally. Cleveland serves as a lawyer for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. You can follow Cleveland on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland to learn more about her most cherished accomplishments, including her husband and son. Cleveland’s views are those expressed here in her personal capacity.
