Judge in Trump’s hush money case expected to sentence him to ‘unconditional discharge’

The judge in Donald Trump’s New York criminal hush money case indicated Friday that he intends to sentence the president-elect to an “unconditional discharge” out of respect for the presidential immunity doctrine.

Judge Juan Merchan ordered Trump to appear, either in person or virtually, for sentencing on Jan. 10, which is 10 days before Trump’s inauguration.

Merchan, in his ruling Friday, called an unconditional discharge “the most viable option to ensure finality and allow the defendant to pursue his appeal options.”

Trump faces the possibility of up to four years in prison on conviction for his conviction, although the sentence of an unconditional discharge means he would avoid prison, fines or probation.

Trump’s legal team is expected to try to stop the sentencing on Jan. 10, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. His lawyers intend to ask a New York appeals court to intervene and stop the sentencing proceeding, the sources said.

Trump spokesman Steven Cheung, in a statement, called Merchan’s decision “a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s immunity decision and other longstanding case law.”

“President Trump must be allowed to continue the presidential transition process and carry out the vital duties of the presidency, unencumbered by the vestiges of this or any vestiges of the witch hunts. There should be no sentencing,” the statement said.

PHOTO: Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump looks on during a roundtable discussion with faith leaders at Christ Chapel on Oct. 23, 2024 in Zebulon, Ga.

Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump looks on during a roundtable discussion with faith leaders at Christ Chapel on Oct. 23, 2024 in Zebulon, Ga.

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images, FILE

If he is unable to sentence Trump on Jan. 10, Merchan suggested he plans to delay sentencing until Trump completes his term as president.

Merchan wrote that delaying sentencing is “less desirable” than sentencing Trump immediately for “obvious” reasons; however, it may become the “only viable option” if sentencing cannot proceed as planned.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which secured the conviction against Trump, did not respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

Trump was found guilty last May of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to boost his chances in the 2016 presidential election.

In his ruling, Merchan described Trump’s behavior as a “premeditated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world.”

“To overturn this conviction on the grounds that the charges are insufficiently serious given the position the defendant once held and is resuming would constitute a disproportionate result and cause immeasurable damage to citizens’ confidence in the rule of law,” the ruling. said.

While Merchan said he can’t decide Trump’s sentence without hearing from Trump himself and others in the case, he signaled his plan to sentence him to an unconditional discharge, under which Trump would avoid serious punishment but his conviction would remain on his record . .

Trump’s lawyers had long fought to push back the sentencing, successfully delaying it three times after the Supreme Court’s sweeping ruling on presidential immunity and a heated presidential campaign.

Merchan originally scheduled the sentencing for July 11 before pushing it to September 18 to weigh whether Trump’s sentencing was affected by the Supreme Court’s July ruling that barred prosecution of a president for official acts performed while in office. Merchan subsequently ruled that Trump’s conviction related “entirely to non-official conduct” and “poses no danger of interference with the authority and function of the executive branch.”

Merchan wrote that an unconditional discharge would respect the sanctity of the jury’s verdict — which he called “a bedrock principle of our nation’s jurisprudence” — and the principle of presidential immunity.

“While this Court may, by law, make no sentencing decision before affording the parties and defendant an opportunity to be heard, it seems appropriate at this time to indicate the Court’s inclination not to impose any term of imprisonment, a sentence endorsed by the , but one of the population admits that they no longer consider a practical recommendation,” the judgment said.

“As such; weighing the aforementioned considerations against the underlying concerns of the presidential immunity doctrine, a judgment of unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow defendants to pursue their appellate options,” Merchan wrote.

In his ruling, Merchan criticized Trump’s earlier request to throw out the jury’s verdict entirely, writing that Trump’s proposal would “undermine the rule of law in immeasurable ways.”

By sentencing Trump to an unconditional discharge — effectively a mark on his record without the risk of jail, fines or probation — Merchan said he hopes to strike a balance of conflicting interests.

“In doing so, this Court recognizes the importance of considering and balancing the apparently competing factors before it: to ensure that the executive branch is free to fully discharge the duties of the President and protect the nation’s interests, unimpeded by pending criminal proceedings; that ensure that the Supreme Court’s decision and the citizen’s expectation that all are equal and no one is above the law, and the importance of protecting the sanctity of a jury verdict,” Merchan wrote.

Merchan’s ruling criticized Trump and his lawyers — several of whom are set to take top Justice Department jobs — for using rhetoric that “has no place in legal pleadings.”

“Dangerous rhetoric is not a welcome form of argument and will have no bearing on how the court reaches this or any other decision,” Merchan wrote.

The judge also criticized Trump for his “contempt” for the judiciary.

“The defendant’s contempt for the third branch of government, whether state or federal, in New York or elsewhere, is a matter of public record. Indeed, the defendant has gone to great lengths to broadcast on social media and other forums his disrespect for judges. juries, grand juries, and the legal system as a whole,” the ruling read.

The jury’s verdict, handed down last summer, made Trump the first US president, current or former, to be convicted criminally.