New York

Donald Trump's request to set aside his conviction would not be opposed by the Manhattan District Attorney (DA) office, an official statement said. The development comes a day after the US Supreme Court ruled that the former presidents have immunity for the acts done in official capacity. 

Advertisment

In a letter addressed to the New York judge presiding over Trump’s hush money trial, Juan Merchan, prosecutors said they received a request from the former president to postpone the sentencing hearing, which is scheduled for 11 July. Merchan is currently weighing how Monday's court ruling affects the case.

Also read | Donald Trump has 'absolute immunity' for official acts, rules US supreme court

Prosecutors wrote: "Although we believe the defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion."

Advertisment

Delay in hush money trial sentencing: What does it mean?

If Donald Trump's request to delay his hush-money sentencing is granted, it would push a sentencing decision past the Republican National Convention, which is scheduled to kick off on July 15. During this convention, Trump is poised to become the official Republican nominee for the White House for November presidential elections.

Also watch | Trump seeks overturn of Hush Money verdict

Advertisment

×

Trump could therefore be named the Republican presidential candidate despite the uncertainty about any potential sentence he could face for his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records.

Trump’s sentence is up to the judge. But it could either be prison time or probation.

Also read | Explained: Who is Stormy Daniels, the ex-porn star behind Trump hush money case trial?

The Manhattan DA's stance on hush money sentencing is the first real-world impact of Monday’s controversial ruling from the supreme court.

While the offences in Trump’s hush-money trial happened before Trump was president, his lawyers argue that the supreme court ruling confirms their argument that some evidence should be inadmissible because it related to presidential acts.