Judge delays ruling on whether to scrap Trump’s conviction in hush money case
NEW YORK — A judge postponed a decision on whether to undo President-elect Donald Trump’s conviction in his hush money case, after his lawyers called for freezing and ultimately dismissing the case so he can run the country.
New York Judge Juan M. Merchan had been set to rule Tuesday on the lawyers’ earlier request to throw out Trump’s conviction because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the summer on presidential immunity. Instead, he told Trump’s lawyers Tuesday that he’d delay the ruling until Nov. 19.
According to emails filed in court, Trump lawyer Emil Bove asked for the delay over the weekend, arguing that putting the case on hold — and then ending it altogether — is “necessary to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern.â€
Prosecutors agreed to the delay.
Trump won back the White House a week ago but the legal question concerns the Republican’s status as a past president, not an impending one.
A jury convicted Trump in May of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels in 2016. The payout was to buy her silence about claims that she had sex with Trump.
Jurors deliberated for 9½ hours over two days before convicting former President Trump of all 34 counts he faced in a hush-money scheme surrounding the 2016 election.
He says they didn’t, denies any wrongdoing and maintains the prosecution was a political tactic meant to harm his latest campaign.
Just over a month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents can’t be prosecuted for actions they took in the course of running the country, and prosecutors can’t cite those actions even to bolster a case centered on purely personal conduct.
Trump’s lawyers cited the ruling to argue that the hush money jury was presented evidence it shouldn’t have been, such as Trump’s presidential financial disclosure form and testimony from some White House aides.
Reelected President Trump breaks no law if he orders federal prosecutors to go after his enemies.
Prosecutors disagreed and said the evidence in question was only “a sliver†of their case.
Trump’s criminal conviction was a first for any ex-president. It left the 78-year-old facing the possibility of punishment ranging from a fine or probation to up to four years in prison.
The case centered on how Trump accounted for reimbursing his personal attorney for the Daniels payment.
The lawyer, Michael Cohen, fronted the money. He later recouped it through a series of payments that Trump’s company logged as legal expenses. Trump, by then in the White House, signed most of the checks himself.
Prosecutors said the designation was meant to cloak the true purpose of the payments and help cover up a broader effort to keep voters from hearing unflattering claims about the Republican during his first campaign.
Trump said that Cohen was legitimately paid for legal services, and that Daniels’ story was suppressed to avoid embarrassing Trump’s family, not to influence the electorate.
Trump was a private citizen — campaigning for president, but neither elected nor sworn in — when Cohen paid Daniels in October 2016. He was president when Cohen was reimbursed, and Cohen testified that they discussed the repayment arrangement in the Oval Office.
Trump has been fighting for months to overturn the verdict and could now seek to leverage his status as president-elect. Although he was tried as a private citizen, his forthcoming return to the White House could propel a court to step in and avoid the unprecedented spectacle of sentencing a former and future president.
While urging Merchan to nix the conviction, Trump also has been trying to move the case to federal court. Before the election, a federal judge repeatedly said no to the move, but Trump has appealed.
Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.
Sign up for Essential California
The most important California stories and recommendations in your inbox every morning.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
![[20060326 (LA/A20) -- STATING THE CASE: Marchers organized by unions, religious organizations and immigrants rights groups carry signs and chant in downtown L.A. "People are really upset that all the work they do, everything that they give to this nation, is ignored," said Angelica Salas of the Coalition of Humane Immigrant Rights. -- PHOTOGRAPHER: Photographs by Gina Ferazzi The Los Angeles Times] *** [Ferazzi, Gina -- - 109170.ME.0325.rights.12.GMF- Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times - Thousands of protesters march to city hall in downtown Los Angeles Saturday, March 25, 2006. They are protesting against House-passed HR 4437, an anti-immigration bill that opponents say will criminalize millions of immigrant families and anyone who comes into contact with them.]](https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/722dda1/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1983x1322+109+0/resize/840x560!/format/webp/quality/75/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fzbk%2Fdamlat_images%2FLA%2FLA_PHOTO_ARCHIVE%2FSDOCS%2854%29%2Fkx3lslnc.JPG)
