Manhattan DA Suggests Non-Prison Sentence For Trump
Donald Trump may avoid prison time altogether or have his sentencing postponed until after he leaves office, according to a court filing by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that was unsealed on Tuesday.
Bragg’s argument was presented as an alternative to dismissing Trump’s conviction for his involvement in a criminal hush money scheme.
District Attorney Urges Judge to Reject Trump’s Presidential Immunity Argument
The Manhattan district attorney has called on New York Judge Juan Merchan to deny Donald Trump’s bid to overturn a jury verdict and dismiss his criminal case on the basis of presidential immunity. The DA’s office argued that Trump’s request “goes well beyond what is necessary to protect the presidency.”
In a court filing, prosecutors acknowledged the importance of maintaining a peaceful transfer of power and an orderly executive transition. However, they emphasized that these principles do not justify halting post-trial motions in an ongoing criminal case.
“The People acknowledge the importance of an orderly executive transition and the peaceful transfer of power, but those interests do not require the extraordinary step of abating post-trial motion practice in a pre-existing criminal case,” the filing stated.
Dismissal Request Tied to Sentencing Speculation
The filing also addressed Trump’s arguments about presidential immunity by highlighting that an unconditional discharge—release at sentencing without conditions—is a possibility in this case. Prosecutors used this point to push back on Trump’s suggestion that immunity was necessary to avoid the potential impact of incarceration on his presidential duties.
District Attorney Alvin Bragg noted that Judge Merchan has no obligation to impose a prison sentence on Trump, as the former president has no prior criminal history and was convicted of Class E felonies, the least severe felony category under New York law.
“The Court could therefore conclude that presidential immunity, while not requiring dismissal, nonetheless would require a non-incarceratory sentence in these circumstances,” the filing stated.
“Such a constitutional limitation on the range of available sentences would further diminish any impact on defendant’s presidential decision-making without going so far as to discard the indictment and jury verdict altogether.”
Background on Trump’s Conviction
Trump was convicted in May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors argued that the payment was part of a scheme to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election by concealing damaging information.
The case has drawn intense scrutiny, with Trump’s defense team repeatedly invoking presidential immunity to argue for dismissal. However, the district attorney’s office contends that such arguments are unnecessary and would set a dangerous precedent if upheld.
As Judge Merchan considers the defense’s motion, the debate over the boundaries of presidential immunity remains a central question in Trump’s ongoing legal battles.
His sentencing has been delayed three times and he is now pushing to have the case dismissed entirely as he prepares to return to the White House following his reelection in November.
Trump’s lawyers had argued that the case should be tossed because Trump, as president-elect, is immune from prosecution during the transition phase — a claim Bragg rejected in his filing.
“There are no grounds for such relief now, prior to defendant’s inauguration, because President-elect immunity does not exist,” Bragg’s filing said. “And even after the inauguration, defendant’s temporary immunity as the sitting President will still not justify the extreme remedy of discarding the jury’s unanimous guilty verdict and wiping out the already-completed phases of this criminal proceeding.”
Prosecutors suggested either delaying sentencing until Trump leaves office, or terminating the proceedings “with a notation that the jury verdict has not been vacated and the indictment has not been dismissed.”
The filing also criticized Trump’s lawyers for rehashing arguments that the court has already rejected and over-interpreting the prohibition on cases against a sitting president, arguing that Trump’s “sweeping argument disregard the careful limits that the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) have placed on presidential immunity.”MORE: Timeline: Manhattan DA’s Stormy Daniels hush money case against Donald Trump
“Defendant’s requested relief would go well beyond what is necessary to protect the presidency and would subvert the compelling public interest in preserving the jury’s unanimous verdict and upholding the rule of law,” the filing said.
Trump’s federal election interference case was thrown out last month due to the Justice Department’s standing policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president, and a federal appeals court dropped Trump from the government’s ongoing appeal of special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case based on the same policy.