Here is the breakdown of Judge Merchan's decision to delay Trump's sentencing in the NY election interference trial:
As an initial matter, the Prosecution did NOT oppose Trump's request for an adjournment of his sentencing. Instead, they told Judge Merchan that they would "defer to the Court" when it came to deciding when to sentence Trump, in light of the recent SCOTUS immunity decision.
Judge Merchan notes that even if the Prosecution claims that they are remaining neutral on Trump's requested delay, "[the Prosecution presents] concerns in their letter of August 16, 2024, in a manner which seemingly supports Defendant's application for an adjournment. The People certainly do not oppose, and a careful reading of their response can fairly be construed as a joinder of the motion."
Trump was supposed to originally be sentenced on July 11th, but b/c of the SCOTUS immunity decision from July 1st caused Trump to file a motion to set aside the jury's verdict and to dismiss the indictment, and the Court agreed to delay until Sept. 6th, with the Prosecution in support of the requested delay.
Sentencing then got delayed to Sept. 18th.
Merchan writes: "This now means that any adjournment, of even one week beyond September 18, will bring us within approximately 41 days of the 2024 presidential election."
Merchan then reasons that if he were to deny Trump's motion to set aside the jury's verdict, he is required to sentence Trump "without unreasonable delay."
However, Merchan notes: "The public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from distraction or distortion."
So, based on all of the above factors/issues, Judge Merchan decided that "the decision on [Trump's motion to set aside the verdict] and the imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance-however unwarranted-that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate."
Merchan reinforces his decision to delay with this rationale: "Adjourning decision on the motion and sentencing, if such is required, should dispel any suggestion that the Court will have issued any decision or imposed sentence either to give an advantage to, or to create a disadvantage for, any political party and/or any candidate for any office."
Merchan ends his ruling by noting that "Adjournments for sentencing are routinely granted, often several times, in any number of other criminal matters pending in this courthouse, particularly when unopposed, for reasons ranging from personal circumstances to the scheduling needs of the parties involved."
So Merchan states that there is no reason to treat Trump any differently than any other defendant.
Therefore:
Merchan will issue his ruling on Trump's motion to set aside the jury's verdict and to dismiss the indictment on November 12, 2024. This will occur "off-calendar" meaning it'll just be a posted decision with no court hearing for it.
Assuming the indictment and verdict survive, Trump will be sentenced on November 26th at 10 a.m. ET.
INTERESTINGLY: Merchan DENIES Trump's motion to prevent the People from filing a pre-sentence memorandum and it will be filed under seal.
PS I do enjoy the timing of Trump's sentencing: 2 days before Thanksgiving. Gobble gobble.🦃
PPS. Here is the statement from the Manhattan DA's Office @ManhattanDA:
“A jury of 12 New Yorkers swiftly and unanimously convicted Donald Trump of 34 felony counts. The Manhattan D.A.’s Office stands ready for sentencing on the new date set by the court.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
JUST IN: Judge Chutkan enters deadlines for Trump’s DC election interference case.
Notably:
*September 26: Special Counsel Jack Smith files his opening brief.
*October 17: Trump’s files his response to that opening brief
*October 29: Smith files his reply brief
This briefing is for the presidential immunity issue.
Recall: In the Joint Status Report, Smith advised the court that his opening brief would reference evidence not disclosed in the superseding indictment. 👀
[Starting a new thread about today's Chutkan hearing:]
Govt: Regardless of DC Circuit precedent the defense could have filed this motion and they didn’t.
Chutkan: I do think this motion could have been followed prior to the deadline. But I’m going to allow the defense to file for leave to file the motion. She wants to defense to include their argument for why DC Circuit precedent doesn’t foreclose such a motion.
Now moving on to the defense’s anticipated motion to dismiss the case based on the grand jury being exposed to immunized conduct.
Chutkan: Will that be related just to the Pence evidence or other stuff as well?
Lauro: It will be focused on the Pence issue, but there might be some others.
Govt.: First the court must make those immunity determinations. If there’s no immunity then there’s no basis to their argument to dismiss the indictment based on exposure to immune conduct.
Chutkan: Now let's talk about the motion to dismiss on statutory grounds.
(This motion was filed before the case was stayed and was fully briefed. Chutkan dismissed the motion after the Supreme Court’s ruling pending further litigation. Now she says she will vacate her previous dismissal and reopen the motion for additional briefing.)
Lauro: I think immunity should be resolved first before we get to the statutory issues.
Chutkan: I agree, but I think we can do a number of things concurrently.
The hearing began at 10:01 am with Judge Chutkan. She arraigned Trump (recall he was allowed to waive his appearance) on the superseding indictment.
She’s now addressing the scheduling proposals set forth in the Joint Status Report.
Gov’t.: We should address the immunity issue first and our opening brief would include all facts relating to immunity.
Gov.t: We were thinking a comprehensive brief where we would set forth the facts. That part of the brief would include things that are in and outside the indictment. We believe the brief would have a substantial number of exhibits. That could include grand jury transcripts, documents, etc. That would allow the court to consider all the relevant facts needed to make immunity decisions. We would lay out why the conduct in the brief is private and not subject to immunity. Regarding the Pence allegations in the indictment, we would lay out why that is not subject to a presumption of innocence.
• SC Jack Smith wants to file an “opening brief” within which Smith will explain why the immunity set forth in the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling does NOT apply to the “categories of allegations in the superseding indictment” nor does it apply to the “additional unpled evidence” Smith intends to introduce at trial.
• Smith says he can file this opening brief “promptly at any time the Court seems appropriate.”
• SC Smith proposes that all motions be filed and fully briefed at the same time as the immunity litigation. Smith notes that Judge Chutkan can then decide when to consider those motions, but at least they’re already done and ready to go.
• Smith finally proposes that there be a separate scheduling track for discovery & motions relating to discovery issues b/c he doesn’t want to delay immunity determinations by Judge Chutkan.
Straight out of the gate, you can note the new allegations in the Superseding Indictment (SI):
- Smith makes it clear that Trump's co-conspirators were all acting in a "private capacity" or they were "not government officials during the conspiracies."
This is important because if they were acting in private capacities or weren't government officials during the relevant times, then there is no immunity.
- Trump's co-conspirators were all "private" individuals: attorneys or a political consultant who assisted Trump in perpetrating his election interference and fraud.
- When it comes to Trump being on notice that his claims of election fraud were false, the SI alleges that Trump was told by "those most invested in his re-election, including his own running mate and his campaign staff."
So Trump as the CANDIDATE not as the president is being put on notice that there was no election fraud.
- The SI alleges that although Trump may have used his Twitter account as president, "he also regularly used it for personal purposes --- including to spread knowingly false claims of election fraud, exhort his supporters to travel to Washington, DC on January 6, pressure the Vice President to misuse his ceremonial role in the certification proceeding, and leverage the events at the Capitol on January 6 to unlawfully retain power."
Again, Smith here is making it clear that there was a clear break between Trump as president and Trump as a private candidate for re-election.
A superseding indictment replaces (or “supersedes”) the original indictment. This superseding indictment now becomes the operative charging document against Donald Trump and its allegations and charges will be the basis of the Government’s prosecution of Trump moving forward.