Judge Merchan postpones Trump's sentencing until after the election

Judge Juan Merchan decided to delay sentencing against former President Trump in the New York vs. Trump case until after the presidential election in November.

Trump's sentencing is now scheduled for November 26. The original date was September 18.

“There should be no conviction in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office witch hunt for election interference. As ordered by the Supreme Court of the United States, this case, along with all other Harris-Biden hoaxes, should be dismissed,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told Fox News Digital.

Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts of first-degree falsification of business records in an unprecedented criminal trial, following a six-week trial before Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's investigation.

In this courtroom sketch, Judge Juan Merchan instructs the jury before deliberations in the criminal trial of Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump, who is accused of falsifying business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016. The trial will take place on May 29, 2024, in Manhattan state court in New York City, United States. (REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg)

Trump's sentence was originally scheduled to be announced on July 11, just days before the Republican National Convention where he would be officially nominated as the Republican presidential candidate for 2024. However, Judge Juan Merchan agreed to postpone the sentencing until September 18.

“Election interference”: Trump’s lawyers demand delay in Bragg case verdict

Trump's lawyers then requested that the verdict be postponed until after the presidential election in November, citing “obvious intentions to influence the election.”

Trump has appealed the verdict after pleading not guilty to all charges. Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche said the verdict must be overturned because of the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump will appear in his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City on May 30, 2024. (Steven Hirsch Pool/Getty Images)

Blanche also pointed to the work of Merchan's daughter at Authentic Campaigns, which represents top Democratic candidates.

TRUMP ASKS FEDERAL COURT TO TAKE OVER BRAGG CASE WEEKS BEFORE SENTENCE

In his dismissal, Blanche argued that Bragg introduced official documents as evidence during the unprecedented six-week criminal trial, including official White House communications to aides such as Hope Hicks, Madeleine Westerhout and others, according to Blanche.

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that a former president enjoys broad immunity from prosecution for official acts, but not for unofficial acts. The Supreme Court declared that Trump was immune from prosecution for “official acts,” but left it to the lower court to determine exactly where the line between official and unofficial acts is drawn.

Former President Trump and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. (Emily Elconin/Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

Meanwhile, Trump last week asked a federal court to remove the New York criminal case from the state, arguing that he had been the victim of “constitutional violations” in a proceeding that contradicted the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity.

U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied that request, saying there was nothing in the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity that changed his view that private payments to a porn star had nothing to do with a president's official actions.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

He had previously stated that Trump's repayments to Michael Cohen, his former lawyer who brokered the hush money payments to porn actress Stormy Daniels, were not official acts of his term as president.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg speaks to the media after a jury found former President Donald Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York on Thursday, May 30, 2024. (AP/Seth Wenig)

“My demand for restitution of the hush money remains valid regardless of who bears the burden, whether the people or Mr. Trump,” Hellerstein wrote in his decision. “Nothing in the Supreme Court's decision affects my prior conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts outside the bounds of executive power.”