NEW YORK: New York’s top court rejected on Thursday Donald Trump’s request to halt the president-elect’s sentencing for his conviction on criminal charges stemming from hush money paid to an adult film star, with a decision on a possible delay now in the hands of the US Supreme Court.

The state court’s decision was a setback for Trump, who now must pin his hopes of freezing the case on the nation’s top judicial body, where his lawyers have made a similar emergency bid to avoid the sentencing, set for Friday at 9:30am in a Manhattan court.

Manhattan prosecutors made a filing at the Supreme Court on Thursday morning, opposing Trump’s bid for a stay.

“Defendant now asks this court to take the extraordinary step of intervening in a pending state criminal trial to prevent the scheduled sentencing from taking place — before final judgment has been entered by the trial court, and before any direct appellate review of defendant’s conviction. There is no basis for such intervention,” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office wrote in a filing.

Manhattan prosecutors made a filing opposing president-elect’s bid for stay

The sentencing is set for 10 days before Trump is due to be sworn in for his second term as president. Any substantial delay would likely mean Trump would not be sentenced before his Jan 20 inauguration.

The Supreme Court could place an administrative pause on Trump’s sentencing, which would give the nine justices additional time to consider his request to halt his case, or it could formally grant or deny his request. It is also possible the justices do not act before the sentencing.

Trump in a Supreme Court filing made public on Wednesday asked for proceedings in the case to stop as he seeks an appeal to resolve questions of presidential immunity following the Supreme Court’s ruling last July that granted former presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts.

“This appeal will ultimately result in the dismissal of the District Attorneys politically motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning,” Trump’s lawyer John Sauer wrote in the filing. Sauer is Trump’s pick to serve as US solicitor general, the government’s chief lawyer at the Supreme Court.

Trump’s lawyers contend that prosecutors improperly admitted evidence of Trump’s official acts during the trial. They also argue that, as president-elect, Trump is immune from prosecution during the period between his November election victory and his inauguration.

‘Only one president at a time’

In their filing on Thursday to the Supreme Court, the New York prosecutors said that “all of the evidence defendant challenged in his post-trial motion either concerned unofficial conduct that is not subject to any immunity, or is a matter of public record that is not subject to preclusion, as the trial court correctly held.”

As to Trump’s argument that he is immune as president-elect, the prosecutors said this “extraordinary immunity claim is unsupported by any decision from any court.” “It is axiomatic that there is only one president at a time,” they added.

Published in Dawn, January 10th, 2025