A judge on Wednesday denied Donald Trump’s request to delay his hush money trial, rejecting his attempt to wait for a Supreme Court ruling on claims of presidential immunity raised in another criminal case. Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan deemed the request untimely, stating that Trump’s lawyers had ample opportunities to raise the immunity issue earlier. The defense’s filing last month, well after the deadline for pretrial motions, raised doubts about the sincerity of their motion, according to Merchan.
Trump’s legal team sought to indefinitely adjourn the New York trial until the resolution of his immunity claim in his Washington, D.C., case involving election interference. They argued that evidence, including Trump’s social media posts, from his time as president should be excluded due to immunity protections. However, Merchan distinguished between the two cases, noting that Trump’s immunity claim in Washington is based on his official acts, while in the hush money case, he seeks to preclude evidence related to his pressure campaign against witnesses.
The hush money case revolves around allegations that Trump falsified his company’s records to conceal payments to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who facilitated the suppression of negative stories during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has pleaded not guilty to falsifying business records and denies any sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels, whom Cohen allegedly paid off.
Despite numerous attempts by Trump’s lawyers to delay the trial, Merchan has repeatedly refused, emphasizing the untimeliness of their motions. Prosecutors have rejected claims of biased media coverage and argued that both sides can select an impartial jury through a thorough selection process.
Merchan’s ruling underscores Trump’s failure to raise the immunity issue earlier and highlights the legal complexity surrounding claims of immunity for official acts by a former president. While prosecutors assert that no such immunity exists, the trial judge in Washington and a federal appeals court have ruled against Trump in that case.
