Trump’s pronouncement of sentence is scheduled for January 10th. Here’s what might transpire subsequently.
Confronted with the unprecedented predicament of determining how, when, or even whether to pronounce sentence upon a former and prospective U.S. president, the presiding judicial officer in President-designate Donald Trump’s matter concerning illicit payments made a noteworthy determination that could nonetheless culminate in a subdued resolution of the matter.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan scheduled the pronouncement of sentence for a period of 10 days preceding Trump’s inauguration — however, the judicial officer indicated that he is inclined toward a sentence that would equate to merely concluding the matter absent of any actual penalty.
He stated that Trump could be present at the January 10th proceeding remotely due to his responsibilities of transition.
Nonetheless, that would result in Trump returning to the White House with an adjudication of guilt for a felony.
Will that transpire? Trump desires the adjudication of guilt to be rejected and the matter dismissed, and the director of communications, Steven Cheung, stated that the president-designate will “continue to contest.” However, it is challenging to foresee precisely what will unfold in this unprecedented, unpredictable matter.
Here are several key inquiries and the extent of our understanding regarding the responses:
Kindly remind me: For what reason is Trump pending pronouncement of sentence?
Trump was adjudicated guilty in May of 34 felony counts pertaining to the falsification of his business’ records. These pertained to a payment of $130,000, effectuated through his former personal legal representative in 2016, to prevent the pornographic performer Stormy Daniels from disseminating her narrative of having engaged in sexual intercourse with Trump a decade prior. He refutes her assertion and maintains that he has committed no wrongdoing.
Trump’s pronouncement of sentence was originally scheduled for July 11th. However, upon the request of his legal representatives, the proceeding was adjourned on two occasions, ultimately being scheduled for a date in late November, subsequent to the presidential election. Subsequently, Trump was victorious, and Merchan placed all matters in abeyance to contemplate the appropriate course of action.
What specific order did the judicial officer just issue?
Merchan rejected Trump’s request to dismiss the adjudication of guilt and the totality of the matter. The judicial officer ordered Trump to be present — remotely or physically, at his discretion — for the pronouncement of sentence at 9:30 a.m. on January 10th.
What will Trump’s sentence entail?
That will not be final until the judicial officer renders it, and he observed that, pursuant to legal statute, he is obligated to afford prosecutors and Trump an opportunity to offer their perspectives. The charges carry possible sanctions spanning from a monetary levy or supervised release to a maximum of four years of incarceration.
However, the judicial officer articulated that “the most feasible course of action” appears to be what is designated as an unconditional discharge. This concludes a matter absent of incarceration, a monetary levy, or supervised release. Nevertheless, an unconditional discharge preserves the defendant’s conviction on record.
Furthermore, pursuant to legal provision, each individual adjudicated guilty of a felony in New York is obligated to furnish a sample of their DNA for the state’s repository of criminal data, even in instances of an unconditional discharge.
Is Trump able to appeal in order to prevent the pronouncement of sentence from occurring?
That is unclear. Appealing an adjudication of guilt or sentence is one matter, but the intricacies of contesting alternative forms of adjudications during a matter are intricate.
Former Manhattan Judge Diane Kiesel stated that, in accordance with New York statutes, Friday’s ruling is not subject to appeal, but that “does not preclude his attempt.”
In the interim, Trump’s legal representatives have been endeavoring to have a federal court assume jurisdiction over the matter. Prosecutors are required to submit a response to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by January 13th, a period of three days subsequent to Trump’s now-scheduled pronouncement of sentence.
The defense has also indicated that it would request the involvement of the U.S. Supreme Court if Merchan did not reject the matter. In a communication to the judicial officer dated November 25th, Trump’s attorneys maintained that the U.S. Constitution authorizes recourse to the supreme judicial body because the defense is advancing contentions regarding presidential immunity.
A significant portion of their argumentation pertains to the Supreme Court’s ruling in July regarding that subject, which provided substantial legal safeguards to presidents.
Trump’s attorneys could endeavor to persuade the Supreme Court that it is required to take subsequent action by intervening at this juncture in the matter concerning illicit payments.
A spokesperson for Trump stated that a determination had not been reached regarding whether to contest Merchan’s ruling.
What is the perspective of the prosecutors regarding all of this?
They refrained from offering commentary regarding Merchan’s ruling. They had earlier urged him to affirm the judgment and presented alternatives such as postponing the pronouncement of sentence until Trump had departed from office, assuring the absence of incarceration, or concluding the matter by acknowledging his conviction but without pronouncement of sentence by virtue of presidential immunity. Merchan deemed those concepts unsustainable.
Is Trump able to appeal his adjudication of guilt?
Affirmative. However, pursuant to legal provision, he is precluded from doing so until the pronouncement of his sentence.
Is Trump able to issue a pardon to himself subsequent to assuming the presidency?
Not in this particular matter. Presidential pardons are applicable solely to offenses at the national level. Trump was adjudged guilty in a court of jurisdiction at the state level in New York.