USA Decision on Trump's immunity in hush money trial postponed
The court's decision on Donald Trump's immunity in a hush-money trial has been postponed by a week. The impact on his presidency remains unclear.
12.11.2024, 20:06
SDA
A judge in New York has postponed the decision on Donald Trump's possible immunity in a hush-money lawsuit by a week. This decision follows requests from both the prosecution and the defense, who had both requested a postponement. The new date for the announcement of the decision is November 19, according to court documents obtained by Deutsche Presse-Agentur.
Judge Juan Merchan had originally planned to announce his decision at the beginning of September. If he grants Trump's defense's request for immunity, the conviction from May could be overturned. Otherwise, it remains unclear whether the sentencing planned for the end of November will go ahead.
Historic conviction and re-election
In May, a jury in New York found Trump guilty on 34 charges. The trial revolved around the illegal concealment of hush money payments to a porn actress, which were intended to give Trump advantages in the 2016 presidential election campaign. This conviction marked the first time in US history that a former president was convicted of a criminal offense. Despite this conviction, Trump was re-elected US President last week, which is also a first.
The sentencing was originally scheduled for mid-September, but was postponed until after the presidential election at Trump's request. In theory, the Republican could face several years in prison, but many observers considered a suspended sentence to be more likely. A sentence for a president-elect is unprecedented in US history.
Influence of the Supreme Court ruling
During the trial, Trump's defense tried to obstruct and stop the proceedings. A ruling by the Supreme Court came in handy: The Supreme Court ruled in July that presidents largely enjoy immunity for their official acts. Although the New York case focuses on Trump's actions as a presidential candidate before the 2016 election, Trump's lawyers argue that the prosecution also used evidence from his time in office in the White House. The Supreme Court ruling states that such official acts cannot be used as evidence in criminal cases.
