Appeals court denies Trump’s bid to halt Friday’s hush money sentencing
Rebecca Noble/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — A New York appeals judge has denied President-elect Donald Trump’s request to delay the Jan. 10 sentencing in his criminal hush money case.
Trump’s sentencing will proceed as planned on Friday, pending potential additional legal maneuvers by the president-elect’s lawyers.
Judge Ellen Gesmer rejected Trump’s claim that the case should be delayed because of presidential immunity, after his attorney argued before the court that Trump is covered by presidential immunity that extends to him while he waits to be sworn in.
The appellate court heard arguments Tuesday in Trump’s lawsuit against the judge in the case, Juan Merchan, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, as part of Trump’s effort to halt his sentencing following his criminal conviction in May.
“We should get a stay so that no further action happens,” defense attorney Todd Blanche said during oral arguments at the Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department. “The imposition is extraordinary.”
Judge Ellen Gesmer questioned whether immunity granted to sitting presidents extends to presidents-elect.
“I’m curious about that,” she said. “Do you have any support for a notion that presidential immunity extends to Presidents-elect?”
Blanche replied that he did not. “There has never been a case like this before, so no,” Blanche said.
Prosecutors said there is no evidence “whatsoever” to back the claim that presidential immunity applies to Trump prior to his inauguration on Jan. 20.
“The claim is so baseless that there is no support for an automatic stay here,” said Steven Wu of the Manhattan district attorney’s office. “There is a compelling public interest in seeing this process come to an end.”
The prosecutor noted that Trump’s sentencing was originally scheduled for July 11 and every delay since has been done at Trump’s request.
“If sentencing is to happen at all, now is the best time for it to happen,” Wu said.
Trump was found guilty in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
Merchan initially scheduled Trump’s sentencing for July 11 before pushing it back in order to weigh if Trump’s conviction was impacted by the Supreme Court’s July ruling prohibiting the prosecution of a president for official acts undertaken while in office. Merchan subsequently ruled that Trump’s conviction related “entirely to unofficial conduct” and “poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”
Trump’s lawyers asked the appeals court to stop the proceedings — including his Jan. 10 sentencing — and to dismiss his conviction outright based on presidential immunity grounds.
“Justice Merchan’s erroneous decisions threaten the institution of the Presidency and run squarely against established precedent disallowing any criminal process against a President-Elect, as well as prohibiting the use of evidence of a President’s official acts against him in a criminal proceeding,” they argued in their suit.
Blanche and fellow defense lawyer Emil Bove, both of whom Trump has picked for top Justice Department posts in his incoming administration, claimed in the suit that Trump’s “undisputed absolute immunity” extends to his time as president-elect — an argument that Judge Merchan roundly denied last week.
The lawyers also claimed that the jury’s verdict was “erroneous” because they saw evidence related to official acts.
“President Trump brings this Article 78 proceeding to redress the serious and continuing infringement on his Presidential immunity from criminal process that he holds as the 45th and soon-to-be 47th President of the United States of America,” the filing said.
The president-elected faces up to four years in prison, but Merchan last week indicated that he would sentence Trump to an unconditional discharge — effectively a blemish on Trump’s record, without prison, fines or probation — saying that would strike a balance between the duties of president and the sanctity of the jury’s verdict.
Merchan on Monday denied a separate request by Trump to halt the sentencing in the case.
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Donald Trump has a massive personal stake in the upcoming election, which could either send him back to the White House — or to a courtroom for what could be years of legal proceedings under the looming threat of incarceration.
No other presidential candidate in history has faced the possibility of such drastically different outcomes, in which Trump’s legacy, personal fortune, and individual liberty could be decided by a few thousand swing state voters.
If he returns to the White House, Trump has vowed to fire Jack Smith, the special counsel who has brought two federal cases against him, “within two seconds”; he has said he would punish the prosecutors and judges overseeing his cases; and he will likely avoid serious consequences for any of the criminal charges he continues to face.
“If he wins, say goodbye to all the criminal cases,” said Karen Friedman Agnifilo, who previously served as the chief of the Manhattan district attorney’s trial division.
“The criminal cases are over, whether it’s legally or practically,” added Friedman Agnifilo, who said a Trump victory would be a “get out of jail free card” for the former president.
If he loses the election, Trump faces years of court proceedings, hundreds of millions in civil penalties, and the possibility of jail time, beginning with the sentencing for his New York criminal case on Nov. 26.
Here is what could happen in each of Trump’s criminal cases.
New York hush money case
Trump’s most pressing legal issue following the election is his Nov. 26 sentencing on 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to cover up a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
Defense lawyers were able to successfully delay the sentencing twice — first by asking to have the case dismissed based on presidential immunity and the second time by highlighting the political stakes of a pre-election sentencing. Describing Trump’s case as one that “stands alone, in a unique place in this Nation’s history,” New York Judge Juan Merchan opted to delay the sentencing until November to ensure the jury’s verdict would “be respected and addressed in a manner that is not diluted by the enormity of the upcoming presidential election.”
While first-time offenders convicted of falsifying business records normally avoid incarceration, legal experts told ABC News that the unique factors of Trump’s case — including him being held in criminal contempt ten times and the finding that he falsified business records to influence an election — could push Judge Merchan to impose some prison time. When ABC News surveyed 14 legal experts about Trump’s sentence in June, five believed an incarceratory sentence was likely, two described the decision as a toss-up, and seven believed a prison sentence was unlikely.
The sentencing could still proceed in November if Trump wins the election, though the new circumstances could influence Judge Merchan’s decision, according to Boston College law professor Jeffrey Cohen. Merchan could opt to impose a lighter sentence — such as a day of probation — or opt to delay the sentence until Trump leaves office.
“A sitting president wouldn’t be forced to be incarcerated while they’re serving their presidency, and so he could theoretically serve it once he’s out of office,” said Cohen, who noted that a delayed sentence could incentivize Trump to remain in office as long as possible.
“If he wins, I think realistically speaking, not there will be no meaningful sentence because of it,” said Friedman Agnifilo.
Trump’s lawyers could also attempt to delay the sentencing in light of the outcome of the election, and the former president still has multiple outstanding legal efforts to delay the case. On Nov. 12, Judge Merchan plans to issue a ruling on Trump’s motion to throw out the case because of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling granting him immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken as president — and if Merchan denies that motion, Trump could attempt to immediately appeal it to try to delay the sentencing further.
Trump has also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to move the state case into federal court, which his lawyers could use to prompt a delay of the sentencing. Unlike his federal cases — for which Trump could theoretically pardon himself — the state case will likely remain outside the reach of a presidential pardon, even if Trump successfully removes the case to federal court, according to Cohen.
Federal election interference case
In the shadow of the presidential race, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has been considering how Trump’s federal election subversion case should proceed in light of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, which delayed the case for nearly a year. Fifteen months after Trump pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a “criminal scheme” to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Judge Chutkan has set a schedule for the case that stretches beyond the election, with deadlines for key filings set for as late Dec. 19.
Trump has vowed to fire Smith if he’s reelected, but that might not be necessary since long-standing DOJ policy bars the prosecution of a sitting president — meaning the federal cases against Trump may be stopped immediately should Trump take office.
While Smith could attempt to continue his prosecution in the two months between the election and the inauguration, there’s little he could do to revive the case, according to Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman.
“They can continue to do what they’re doing, but it’s not going to really matter if, at the end of the day, Trump is able to appoint an attorney general who will then make a motion to dismiss the charges,” Gershman said.
While his federal case will inevitably go away if Trump wins, the exact way it happens is uncertain. Smith could attempt to issue a final report about his findings, Trump could face a standoff with Congress or the acting attorney general about firing Smith, or Judge Chutkan could push back against the Justice Department’s eventual move to dismiss the charges.
If Trump loses the election, Judge Chutkan is expected to continue to assess whether any of the allegations in the case are protected by presidential immunity. Her final decision will likely be appealed and could return to the Supreme Court, likely delaying a trial for at least another year, according to experts.
Federal classified documents case
After U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed Trump’s criminal case for retaining classified documents and obstructing the government’s efforts to retrieve them, Smith asked an appeals court to reinstate the case, arguing that Cannon’s decision about the appointment and funding of special counsels could “jeopardize the longstanding operation of the Justice Department and call into question hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch.”
If Trump wins the election, prosecutors will likely have no choice but to withdraw their appeal, according to Friedman Agnifilo, cementing Judge Cannon’s dismissal of the case.
If Trump loses the election, the case faces a long road before reaching a trial. Prosecutors need to successfully convince the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse Cannon’s dismissal, and Trump’s team has already raised a defense based on presidential immunity, which could become the basis for a future appeal.
Faced with a series of adverse rulings, Smith would also face a key decision about whether to ask for Judge Cannon to be recused from the case, according to Cohen.
“I’m not sure what their reasons are now, except ‘We don’t really like what she’s decided,'” said Cohen, who was skeptical about the government’s grounds for recusal based on the trial record alone.
In a separate case overseen by Judge Cannon, defense lawyers for Ryan Routh — the man accused of trying to assassinate Trump at his Florida golf course in September — moved to have Cannon recused, in part citing ABC News’ reporting that a personnel roster circulating through Trump’s transition operation included Cannon’s name among potential candidates for attorney general should Trump be reelected. Cannon on Tuesday rejected that motion, describing the argument about a potential appointment as “‘rumors’ and ‘innuendos.'”
“We had a brave, brilliant judge in Florida. She’s a brilliant judge, by the way. I don’t know her. I never spoke to her. Never spoke to her. But we had a brave and very brilliant judge,” Trump said about Cannon last week.
Fulton County election interference case
Trump’s criminal case in Fulton County, Georgia, related to his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election in that state, has been stalled since June while an appeals court considers the former president’s challenge to Judge Scott McAfee’s decision not to disqualify District Attorney Fani Willis for what McAfee called a “significant appearance of impropriety” stemming from a romantic relationship between Willis and a prosecutor on her staff. A Georgia appeals court scheduled oral arguments about whether Willis can continue her case on Dec. 6.
When asked about the future of the case if Trump wins the election, Trump defense attorney Steve Sadow told Judge McAfee last December that a trial would likely have to wait until after Trump completes his term in office.
Since August 2023, when Trump was charged in Fulton County with 13 criminal counts, Judge McAfee has chipped away at the indictment by tossing five of the counts with which Trump was originally charged.
If he loses the election, Trump could attempt to stall the case by continuing to push to have Willis disqualified or by mounting a presidential immunity defense.
“The indictment in this case charges President Trump for acts that lie at the heart of his official responsibilities as President,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a January motion.
Police released photos of a suspect sought in the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. NYPD
(NEW YORK) — The unidentified man suspected of gunning down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson remains at large after the “brazen, targeted” shooting outside a Midtown Manhattan hotel on Wednesday, police said.
Here is a timeline of the suspect’s whereabouts before, during and after the shooting:
Nov. 24
The killer entered New York City by bus on Nov. 24, when a surveillance camera at Port Authority Bus Terminal caught his arrival at 9 p.m., law enforcement sources told ABC News.
The inbound bus originated in Atlanta but it was not immediately clear where the suspect boarded.
He likely checked into a hostel on New York City’s Upper West Side that day and later checked out, sources said.
Nov. 30
The suspect likely checked back into the HI New York City Hostel on the Upper West Side on Nov. 30, sources said.
Dec. 4 at 5 a.m.
At 5 a.m., nearly two hours before the shooting, the suspect was seen in surveillance footage outside the hostel on the Upper West Side, holding what appears to be an e-bike battery.
6:15 a.m.
At 6:15 a.m., surveillance footage reviewed by police shows someone who appears to be the suspect leaving a 57th Street subway station near the crime scene, police sources told ABC News.
Before the shooting
Sometime before the shooting, the suspect is spotted at a Starbucks. The exact time is not clear.
6:29 a.m.
The suspect appeared to walk past a parking lot on West 54th Street at 6:29 a.m. — across the street some 50 meters from the site of the shooting.
6:44 a.m.
At 6:44 a.m., the masked gunman fatally shot Brian Thompson in front of the north entrance to the New York Hilton Midtown.
“The shooter then walks toward the victim and continues to shoot,” NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny said. “It appears that the gun malfunctions, as he clears the jam and begins to fire again.”
The shooter fled on foot into an alley, where a phone believed to be linked to the suspect was later recovered, police sources said.
Time unknown
The suspect then fled north on a bike and rode into Central Park, police said.
6:59 a.m.
A person appearing to be the suspect was seen just before 7 a.m. on the Upper West Side. He was riding a bicycle away from Central Park, heading west on 85th Street. He no longer had a backpack on.
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request from Mark Meadows, the one-time chief of staff to former President Donald Trump, to move his Georgia election interference case into federal court.
Meadows was charged alongside Trump and 18 others last year in the Fulton County racketeering case over their alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the state. Meadows and the others pleaded not guilty to all charges, and four defendants subsequently took plea deals.
Meadows for months has sought to move his case into federal court based on a law that calls for the removal of criminal proceedings when someone is charged for actions they allegedly took as a federal official acting “under color” of their office.
Meadows had argued to the Supreme Court that a lower court erred when it rejected Meadows’ request to move the case out of state court and into federal court, in part by pointing to the court’s recent landmark ruling granting Trump some immunity for official acts.
“Just as immunity protection for former officers is critical to ensuring that current and future officers are not deterred from enthusiastic service, so too is the promise of a federal forum in which to litigate that defense,” the 47-page filing states.
Both a lower court and appeals court have rejected that claim, with one judge writing that Meadows’ actions charged in the indictment “were taken on behalf of the Trump campaign” and were not his official duties.
The Fulton County election interference case is largely on pause pending an appeal of ruling that allowed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on the case after Judge Scott McAfee declined to disqualify her due to a “significant appearance of impropriety” stemming from a romantic relationship between her and a prosecutor on her staff.
A spokesperson for the DA’s office recently declined to comment when asked by ABC News for their views on the future of the case, given Trump’s reelection last week.
