By Manhattan prosecutors signaled Tuesday they would oppose dismissing President-elect Donald Trump’s hush money conviction while showing willingness to consider delaying his sentence until after his upcoming presidential term, highlighting unprecedented legal questions facing the American judiciary.
In a carefully worded court filing, the Manhattan district attorney’s office maintained that Trump’s forthcoming presidency doesn’t justify dropping the case, where a jury convicted him in May of falsifying business records to conceal election-influencing payments. However, prosecutors acknowledged that “given the need to balance competing constitutional interests,” postponing the case’s resolution merits consideration.
“We are mindful of the demands and obligations of the presidency” and recognize that Trump’s return to the White House “will raise unprecedented legal questions,” prosecutors stated, while emphasizing their commitment to “the fundamental role of the jury in our constitutional system.”
The filing responds to a motion from Trump’s legal team urging Judge Juan M. Merchan to dismiss the case entirely “to facilitate the orderly transition of executive power — and in the interests of justice.” Trump’s sentencing had originally been scheduled for November 26, before his election victory prompted the request for dismissal.
Legal experts are weighing in on the constitutional implications. Claire Finkelstein, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told VOA’s Kim Lewis that a suspended sentence “would not hamper” Trump’s ability “to carry out his constitutional duties as president.” She indicated potential constitutional conflicts would only arise “if that sentence were to be carried out as president.”
Trump spokesperson and incoming White House communications director Steven Cheung characterized the prosecutors’ filing as “a total and definitive victory for President Trump,” maintaining the former president’s long-standing position that the case represents a “witch hunt.”
The case centers on thirty-four counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 election. Prosecutors alleged the payment aimed to suppress Daniels’ claim of a previous sexual encounter with Trump, allegations the president-elect consistently denies.
Judge Merchan could dismiss the case entirely, which would erase Trump’s conviction. He might delay the case for a specified period, await a federal appeals court ruling on Trump’s effort to move the case to federal court, or pursue alternative legal remedies. No timeline has been set for his decision on how to proceed with this unprecedented case involving a convicted former president returning to office.
