Trump’s Sentencing Should Not Have Been Delayed for Legal Reasons

At first glance, Justice Juan Merchan's decision to grant former President Donald Trump’s request for a delay in his sentencing for a criminal conviction in Manhattan might raise eyebrows.

Supporters of the prosecution in the hush money case have generally regarded Merchan’s management of the situation positively, appreciating his determination to advance the case despite personal attacks and the persistent, often frivolous, tactics of Trump's legal team. Conversely, many of Trump's supporters have depicted Merchan as a mere political pawn, unfairly targeting Trump at every turn—a narrative fostered by Trump, his attorneys, and complacent members of the conservative media.

From both perspectives, one might expect Merchan to have moved forward with Trump's sentencing before November, so why the delay?

Legally speaking, there was no legitimate reason to postpone Trump's sentencing. Yet, I do not fault Merchan for his decision.

In a letter made public on Friday, Merchan expressed a wish to prevent any illusion of influencing the upcoming presidential election. However, it appears that the Manhattan district attorney's office played a significant role in this outcome.

Several weeks prior, prosecutors informed Merchan that they did not contest Trump's request for a sentencing delay beyond the November election. This communicated message was crucial for the judge, as it is primarily the duty of prosecutors to ensure the timely sentencing of criminal defendants.

Indeed, in his concise ruling, Merchan highlighted the district attorney’s position, stating that “despite the People’s stated neutrality,” the office had “seemingly support[ed]” Trump's request. Merchan also remarked that prosecutors “certainly” did “not oppose” this request and suggested that “a careful reading of” their response could “fairly be construed as a joinder of the motion.”

Merchan's observation is accurate. The stance taken by the DA’s office made a delay in sentencing inevitable.

This situation also reduces the chances of a long-awaited resolution regarding whether Trump should serve time in prison as a result of his conviction—a concept that once seemed outrageous but has gained traction due to Trump's behavior during the trial.

If sentencing eventually occurs—an uncertain proposition given the election's proximity—Trump has potentially subjected himself to several months behind bars.

From a purely legal standpoint, Trump's sentencing should have proceeded as scheduled.

Trump's arguments for postponing sentencing rested on two tenuous points: First, he intends to appeal, claiming that his conviction should be overturned due to a Supreme Court ruling in July that established a realm of presidential immunity concerning criminal actions tied to “official acts.” Second, his lawyers asserted that the only motives for proceeding with sentencing were “naked election-interference objectives.”

It’s worth noting that Trump was convicted over three months ago—an ordinarily sufficient timeframe in criminal cases before sentencing. Generally, appeals do not delay sentencing, even if a defendant is confident of eventual victory.

Typically, in situations involving potential appealable issues in a complex criminal case, the solution is straightforward: the judge sentences the defendant while allowing them to remain free on bail pending appeal. If the appeal succeeds and the conviction is overturned, the sentence can be annulled.

This approach is beneficial for judicial efficiency, as appeals can extend for years, and timely sentencing allows all parties involved to retain fresh recollections of the facts and evidence.

Nonetheless, the DA’s office put Merchan in a difficult position by effectively siding with Trump's desire for a delay. Traditionally, it is the role of prosecutors to ensure that defendants are sentenced promptly after conviction, regardless of impending appeals. Their acquiescence likely spared Merchan from further scrutiny and criticism from Trump and his supporters for proceeding with sentencing before the election.

Merchan has faced significant backlash throughout the year, largely due to Trump, his attorneys, and countless supporters who have made unfounded claims of bias and ethical violations against him.

Merchan, having received numerous death threats, has endured even more scrutiny due to unfounded conspiracy theories linking his daughter’s political work to his judicial role. The latest twist in this narrative was a tweet from one of his daughter’s colleagues that expressed support for Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz—a theory dismissed by the DA's office as “bizarre” and irrelevant to the post-trial timeline.

Considering this context, imagine being in Merchan’s role as the presiding judge. Would you want to be at the center of the anticipated controversy surrounding Trump's sentencing schedule—facing pushback from Trump, his supporters, and various political and media figures—before Election Day? Should Trump defeat Biden in November, he would wield presidential power and a platform to exacerbate matters for Merchan and his family long into the future.

Legally, the sentencing should have proceeded as planned, with Trump allowed to remain on bail pending appeal.

This opinion comes from someone who expresses ambivalence regarding the initiation of the Manhattan DA's prosecution.

There exists a critical distinction between deciding to pursue a criminal case initially and how to manage the proceedings once a case is underway. After a trial begins, the case should follow the typical procedures that every other American criminal defendant must adhere to, including the timing and sequencing of post-trial motions, appeals, and yes, the sentencing.

This distinction holds as well for determining an appropriate sentence under the circumstances. Even if a judge or observer might personally question the prudence of initiating the case, the sentencing must reflect the jury's verdict and account for various relevant factors.

These factors include the nature of the offense, the defendant’s background, and the necessity of ensuring that similarly situated defendants receive equivalent treatment. Federal judges are explicitly mandated to consider the importance of “promoting respect for the law” during the sentencing process—a factor that should be paramount when determining Trump's sentence.

So what would an appropriate sentence be for Trump?

Under normal circumstances, Trump would likely present a strong case for probation or a non-incarceration alternative for his punishment. Convicted on 34 charges, these essentially constituted a singular charge—falsifying business records to conceal a payment to Stormy Daniels—rooted in various internal records reflecting that sole scheme. Technically, the charges represented different iterations of a low-level felony under New York law.

Moreover, the case is undoubtedly unique; white-collar defendants in New York typically experience leniency, and Trump is a first-time offender.

However, Trump faces two significant challenges if his sentencing occurs.

The first issue arises from the consequences faced by Allen Weisselberg, his company’s former CFO, who received two consecutive five-month sentences in Rikers Island due to actions partially benefiting Trump—first for pleading guilty to tax fraud, which also led to a criminal conviction for the Trump Organization, and later for lying under oath during a civil business fraud trial against Trump.

Given Weisselberg’s treatment, there is little justification for Trump receiving probation for his own conviction.

The second major issue relates to Trump's behavior throughout the trial, which was highly inappropriate. He engaged in direct attacks against the judge, prosecutors, jurors, and witnesses, seemingly to complicate the prosecution's efforts and undermine the proceedings for his personal and political gain.

Multiple violations of a gag order, meant to prevent him from targeting jurors and witnesses, resulted in several contempt rulings against him. Merchan aptly noted that Trump’s conduct jeopardized the “administration of justice” and represented a direct “attack on the rule of law,” while raising serious concerns for “the safety of the jurors and their loved ones.”

During the trial, Trump regularly took to the media to misrepresent the case, labeling it as a “Biden indictment” and “Biden prosecution,” framing it as “election interference” designed “to keep me off the campaign trail.” These claims have no factual basis, yet Trump and his Republican supporters persist in promoting them.

Trump’s misbehavior extended beyond the courtroom. He claimed on the campaign trail that the trial was “fake” and “bullshit,” asserting he was entangled in a “kangaroo court” led by a “corrupt” judge. He broadcast on social media that he faced persecution from “fascist prosecutors” and that “that DISGUSTING judge” was out to get him. He even told donors he was being prosecuted as part of Biden’s “Gestapo administration,” continuing this rhetoric even after his conviction in a speech at Trump Tower.

This conduct fostered a toxic environment. One juror eventually sought to withdraw from the case, while another broke down in tears before being excused. Trump’s supporters even attempted to dox the jurors after the verdict, and it's hardly surprising that, thus far, none of the jurors who voted to convict has publicly identified themselves.

Such occurrences are far from the norm in criminal cases, and they contributed to an overwhelming case against Trump in their own right.

Citizens should not feel anxious about jury service, especially in cases involving a former president. The idea that individuals might genuinely fear for their safety in serving on a jury is typically reserved for the most heinous criminal cases. Jurors should be able to fulfill their civic duties without facing attacks and harassment; instead, they were maligned by the former president and his associates.

In light of these circumstances, Trump earned himself a few months at Rikers Island if sentencing occurs.

Should that day come, there will likely be significant backlash from Republicans and Trump-aligned commentators. However, the reality is that he and his legal team will have no one to blame but themselves—even disregarding the implications of the conduct that brought about his conviction.

Trump has behaved as if he is above the law—treating the judiciary and its officials as disposable obstacles in his self-serving mission to evade conviction and imprisonment. No other American criminal defendant has ever attempted—let alone succeeded in such behavior.

Currently, Trump’s outcome hinges on the upcoming election. Should he win, it's reasonable to assume that the case will be stalled during his presidency. There is no realistic scenario in which he can function as commander-in-chief while imprisoned.

Conversely, if he loses, his situation becomes precarious. The case should advance to sentencing, subsequently initiating the appeals process.

The duration of this process remains hard to predict, especially with the potential for U.S. Supreme Court intervention, where the six Republican-appointed justices have indicated a willingness to formulate new rules and dubious legal arguments to extricate Trump from serious legal dilemmas.

For now—in the lead-up to Election Day—Trump can celebrate his success in postponing a legal reckoning this year. Should he win, that reckoning may never materialize.

Mark B Thomas contributed to this report for TROIB News