Judge rules on Donald Trump’s request to stay conviction for hush money

NEW YORK, Sept. 6 – A New York judge is expected to rule on Friday on Donald Trump’s request to delay sentencing in his hush money criminal case until after the Nov. 5 election.

The sentencing for the former US president is scheduled for September 18, less than two months before the election in which Trump will run as the Republican presidential candidate.

Trump’s lawyers asked Judge Juan Merchan in August to postpone the hearing, citing “blatant intent to interfere with the election.” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the charges, is a Democrat.

Bragg’s office did not comment on Trump’s motion. Prosecutors said in a court document filed Thursday evening that the judge had told the parties he would rule on Friday.

In the first criminal trial of a former or current U.S. president, Trump was found guilty on May 30 of falsifying business records in connection with the cover-up of a $130,000 payment made by his then-attorney to porn star Stormy Daniels because of her silence before the 2016 election about a sexual encounter she said she had with Trump ten years earlier.

Trump denies the encounter and has announced that he will appeal the verdict.

Falsifying business documents can result in up to four years in prison, although fines or suspended sentences are more common.

Trump’s lawyers urged Merchan to delay sentencing, while arguing that there was not enough time before the verdict to potentially appeal the judge’s upcoming decision on Trump’s request to overturn the conviction based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling on presidential immunity.

Merchan is expected to decide on this application on September 16.

In its 6-3 ruling, which related to another criminal case against Trump, the Supreme Court held that presidents cannot be prosecuted for their official acts and that evidence of presidents’ official acts cannot be used in criminal proceedings involving unofficial acts.

Bragg’s office argued that his case concerned Trump’s personal conduct, which is why the ruling should stand.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without any modifications.