Trump's New York sentencing pushed back while Judge reviews USSC decision on immunity

At first glance this decision doesn't seem relevant to the NY case, but there may be other factors involved.

So Trump will not officially become a convicted felon till September if he becomes one at all. Technically the jury found him guilty, but he is not convicted until the Judge enters the findings into record and sentences him. For now, he is still not convicted from a purely semantical point of view.

Now, none of these charges seem relevant to Trump's official duty as President, given most of the allegations took place before he became President. Certainly it is not an official Presidential action to have sex with a porn star or enter into a non-disclosure agreement to keep it quiet. Moreover, the basic fundamental allegations was that he did "not" properly report something. I am pretty sure "not doing something" is not an official Presidential action. Moreover, the filing of paperwork with the Federal Elections Commission is the action of a candidate, not a President.

That being said, the part of the ruling that Trump attorneys are focusing is the portion where the USSC ruled that you cannot use any official acts to assist in proving that a non-official act is criminal. Here is where the devil is going to be in the details. Trump attorneys claim that certain evidence should not have been presented to the jury, They also point out that they had previously objected pre-trial to potential evidence they felt would be official Presidential acts, based on the claim that the USSC might rule in their favor about immunity. Merchan denied their claims as being "untimely" but noted them in the official record. It would seem logical that Merchan would be required to now reconsider those objections that he originally ignored. Trump attorneys pointed out that the USSC ruling also suggested that the judge may not inquire about Trump's motives in those official acts when making these determinations. Much of the trial was about implied motives, but it would be interesting to see which parts of that are being suggested to be official acts.

The motion was supplemented with "motion papers" which one would assume would include the specific examples of official acts that was put before the jury. But according to the high court, everything from discussions with other officials, tweets and public statements made while President would fall under the category of immunity and not be allowed to have been entered into the trial.