Trump sentencing in hush-money case delayed again until November 19

A New York judge, Juan Merchan, has postponed the decision on Donald Trump’s sentencing in his high-profile hush-money case, delaying it until November 19.

This delay could extend the impact of the conviction into his upcoming administration.

This update, confirmed by a court statement on Tuesday, adds another layer of delay to Trump’s legal battle over alleged hush-money payments.

“The joint application for a stay of the current deadlines… until November 19, is granted,” the court said in an email seen by AFP.

The decision comes amid multiple delays in a case that could see Trump sentenced on 34 felony counts.

According to The Guardian, the delay reflects the Trump defence team’s numerous motions over the past year, each requesting more time or challenging aspects of the proceedings.

Protracted Legal Battle

The case originates from Trump’s April 2024 court appearance—the first time a former president has faced criminal charges.

As reported by PUNCH Online, Trump, 77, was accused of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign.

This hush-money case is just one of four criminal cases Trump is grappling with as he campaigns for the White House.

In May, a New York jury found him guilty on all counts in an unprecedented verdict that jolted U.S. political circles.

The case was adjourned to September and then delayed again.

This was the first conviction of a former president for business fraud, setting off waves across media outlets from PUNCH to CBS.

Trump’s team had anticipated that a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity might offer him a shield, leading Judge Juan Merchan to delay sentencing until September and, subsequently, November.

According to a statement released at the time by Biden’s campaign, the conviction underscored that “no one is above the law.”

Biden’s communications director, Michael Tyler, said, “Donald Trump has always mistakenly believed he would never face consequences for breaking the law for his own personal gain.”

Trump’s Legal Strategy

Trump’s defence argues that the payments to Daniels were legal expenses and that the claims of falsified business records violate neither state nor federal laws.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office disputes this, arguing that the payments were structured to bypass New York’s election laws, amounting to an illegal campaign contribution.

These funds, prosecutors allege, were intended to influence the election in Trump’s favour — a point highlighted by The New York Times.

The Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling, granting sitting presidents immunity for actions taken in office, added complexity to Trump’s case, as his defence team invoked this ruling to argue for dismissal.

As Merchan reviews these arguments, he has warned of the “fraught complexities” involved and emphasised a desire to prevent the legal proceedings from impacting the election.

Despite his legal battles, Trump won the November 5 election against Kamala Harris, buoyed by steady support among his base.

Yet, his win has stirred fresh complications for his other cases.
Special prosecutor Jack Smith is reportedly scaling down federal probes into Trump’s role in election interference and the classified documents case, which could be deferred.

Meanwhile, the Fulton County election interference case in Georgia has been put on hold following a new appeal, with prospects for prosecution uncertain due to recent revelations regarding District Attorney Fani Willis’s office.

As January 25, 2025, approaches—the date Trump is set to assume office as the 47th president—the implications of these pending cases remain unresolved.