The fate of President-elect Trump’s New York hush money case is now in the hands of Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the first historic conviction of the country’s former and now incoming president.

At issue is whether the jury’s verdict of finding Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records should stand in light of Trump winning the election.

The case centered on a hush money payment Trump’s then-fixer, Michael Cohen, made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to cover up allegations of an affair during Trump’s first run at the White House in 2016. 

The seven-week-long blockbuster trial earlier this year placed several former and current Trump World figures on the stand. The conviction did not bar Trump from running for president, and he eventually won a decisive victory just months after his conviction.

Merchan must weigh several paths forward before the clock runs out on Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.

Here are the judge’s options.

Dismiss the case entirely

It’s Trump’s position that his presidential win requires Merchan to toss the case entirely, including his conviction. 

But prosecutors this week called dismissal an “extreme remedy,” instead laying out several alternatives the judge could take.  

“Neither the Supreme Court nor [Office of Legal Counsel] has addressed the impact of presidential immunity in the precise circumstances of this case: a state prosecution, based on crimes consisting wholly of unofficial acts, where a jury has already found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” they wrote. 

Trump’s lawyers, however, argue that anything less than dismissal would effectively interfere with his presidency. 

“The dispositive consideration requiring dismissal is that this criminal case creates
unconstitutional and unacceptable diversions and distractions from President Trump's efforts to lead the Nation,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. 

Halt proceedings while Trump's in office

Freezing the case while Trump is in office emerged as an early alternative to throwing it out for the district attorney, though the president-elect is opposed. 

“The impermissible deferral suggested by [the district attorney of Manhattan] would give rise to additional constitutional concerns because these proceedings are far from over,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. 

Legal experts largely agree that Trump’s criminal cases must, at minimum, be paused while he’s in the White House. The district attorney’s office agrees that presidential immunity “requires accommodation.” 

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg floated pausing the case for the duration of Trump’s term, allowing his conviction to remain on the books but punting his sentencing to 2029, at the earliest.  

“If judgment has not been entered before presidential immunity attaches, this type of time-limited accommodation is far more appropriate than the sweeping relief that defendant requests here, which would render the indictment and jury verdict in this case a nullity and eliminate his accountability for the crimes that a jury of his peers found he committed by proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” Bragg’s office wrote. 

Treat it as if Trump dies

If the judge wants to do more than halt Trump’s case, prosecutors proposed a novel alternative: treating it as if Trump passed away. 

“It makes sense to borrow from the manner in which courts address abatement because many of defendant’s arguments here parallel the arguments made in favor of dismissal and vacatur upon a defendant’s death,” prosecutors wrote. 

That scenario would terminate the prosecution without formally tossing the jury’s guilty verdict. The court would update the case file to note the verdict removed the presumption of innocence, Trump was never sentenced and that his conviction was neither affirmed nor reversed on appeal.  

Prosecutors acknowledged it would be a first-of-its-kind solution but told the judge he would be justified in doing so. 

“Especially given the novelty of defendant’s own immunity claims, it would hardly be improper for this Court to exercise its inherent authority to consider novel remedies,” prosecutors wrote. 

Toss verdict over improper trial evidence

The judge could wipe the jury’s verdict on grounds unrelated to Trump's election victory. 

Merchan has yet to rule on whether the verdict can withstand the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in July carving out broad criminal immunity for former presidents. 

Trump contends the jury’s deliberations were tainted by official acts presented as evidence during the seven-week trial, including his social media posts while in office and testimony from White House aides. 

“It necessarily follows that the results of a trial conducted in breach of these holdings is invalid. The verdicts reflect a threat to the principles articulated by the Supreme Court and the concerns that animate the Supremacy Clause,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in July. 

Prosecutors insist their evidence did not include official conduct, and even if it did, any error was harmless.
 
If Merchan agrees with Trump, he could vacate the verdict or dismiss the entire case, avoiding the uncharted territory of how to handle his status as president-elect. 

Proceed to sentencing 

Trump has argued the immunity enjoyed by a sitting president extends to him now as president-elect. Prosecutors pushed back, insisting the case can move ahead until he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20. 

“No principle of immunity precludes further proceedings before defendant’s inauguration,” prosecutors wrote. 

That argument leaves the door open to still sentence Trump before he returns to the White House. 

If the judge attempts to move ahead with sentencing, Trump’s lawyers have vowed to go to federal court to block it — an effort that, even if unsuccessful, could delay things until after he assumes the presidency. 

Prosecutors suggested the judge could sentence Trump without imposing prison time. 

Under New York law, judges can hand down an “unconditional discharge” if they are of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by a punishment. 

“The Court could therefore conclude that presidential immunity, while not requiring dismissal, nonetheless would require a non-incarceratory sentence in these circumstances,” prosecutors wrote in their brief.