The president-elect of the United States, Donald Trump, is expected to face his decision in New York in New York, just a few days before he is sworn in for a second term in the White House.
On Friday, Judge Juan Merchan issued an 18-page written order requiring Trump to appear, in person or not, on January 10 for his sentencing.
Merchan also rejected Trump's request to overturn his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to payments he made during his 2016 presidential campaign.
Trump pushed for the decision to be overturned, as he seeks re-election in November's presidential election. His opening ceremony is scheduled for January 20, just 10 days after the trial.
“Since there is no impediment to sentencing and recognizing that the immunity of the President will come when the Accused takes the oath of office, it is necessary for this Court to set this case for a decision on January 20, 2025,” said Judge Merchan. .
He added that he did not want to impose a prison sentence in the case.
On the contrary, he indicated that he was considering the decision of “indefinite release” as “the best way to solve the problem”. That penalty would have avoided the imposition of penalties, including jail time or fines.
List of legal cases
Mr. Trump has been involved in several criminal cases since his first term in office ended in January 2021.
Among them were four charges: one for concealing confidential documents while in office, two for trying to interfere in the 2020 election and the fourth for paying frivolous money.
The civil lawsuit was for $130,000 that was awarded to actress Stormy Daniels after she claimed that she and Trump were having an affair.
Critics have argued that Trump tried to hide the payments, made through his former lawyer Michael Cohen, to avoid damaging the media during the 2016 election.
Linking to an election increases legal risk: In general, falsifying a business record is a misdemeanor, but it can be a felony if the “intent to defraud” is related to another potential crime.
Trump eventually won the race in 2016. In May, he was found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. The money laundering case is only one of four cases that went to trial and conviction.
As Trump is expected to take office again, the future of the cases against him is increasing.
Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed to preside over the two federal cases against Trump, asked the judges involved to drop the charges in November.
He explained that his decision was “not based on the merits or strength of the case” but on Trump's return to the White House.
On January 20, Trump will be in charge of the Justice Department, the law enforcement agency that appointed Smith. The special counsel has said that he will resign before that time.
The federal case in Georgia, meanwhile, is still riddled with appeals and roadblocks. In December, an appeals court ruled that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis could no longer preside over the case, adding to the uncertainty surrounding her future.
Removal incentives
Another problem arose in July, when a permanent Supreme Court ruling ruled on immunity for the President. While the court rejected Trump's claim that he was “indefensible”, it expanded the concept of the president's immunity beyond his official position.
Anything that can be considered “authoritative” of the President falls under the “arrogance defense”, the Supreme Court declared.
But the court was not clear on what the “law” would be. The issue has reached the defense team's decision to settle a money laundering case in New York.
Judge Merchan addressed this uncertainty clearly in Friday's ruling.
“The main issue before this court is this: should the President-elect be afforded the same protection from prosecution as the President? This issue, as far as this Court can determine, has no precedent,” wrote Merchan.
But in the end, Merchan decided that the president's protection did not extend to what he did outside of office.
“This Court finds that the immunity of the President from criminal activity against the President does not extend to the President,” he wrote. “The Constitution says that only the President, after taking the oath of office, has the authority of the Chief Executive, the President's appointee does not.”
Merchan said he also examined the arguments that the president should be free to “protect the interests of the Nation, not be bound pending litigation”.
He said he reconciled those principles against “other competing concerns” including the idea that “no one is above the law” and “the need to protect the sanctity of the jury's decision”.
“This court is not bound by the prima facie case,” Merchan wrote in a statement of reasons for upholding the decision.