On Tuesday, acting Justice Juan Merchan agreed to postpone sentencing in the New York criminal case against former President Donald Trump.

Trump's legal team sent a letter to the judge requesting permission to file a motion to overturn the jury's guilty verdict following the Supreme Court's recent ruling regarding Trump's presidential immunity claim, Blaze News previously reported. In late May, a Manhattan jury found the former president guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records.

'We do not oppose his request.'

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote that Trump has absolute immunity for "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," "presumptive immunity" for all official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. However, the high court has left it up to lower courts to determine what constitutes an official act.

Trump's attorneys argued that, while the New York case concerned acts that occurred before Trump became president, some of the evidence used by the prosecution to secure the guilty verdict constituted official acts during his presidency.

Will Scharf, Trump's lawyer, told CNN that the prosecution used a "substantial number of official acts of the presidency" as evidence in its case.

"The Supreme Court was very clear that for acts that fall within the outer perimeter of the president's official responsibilities, acts that are presumptively immune from prosecution, that evidence of those acts cannot be used to try essentially private acts," Scharf explained.

"At the very least, we deserve a new trial where those immune acts will not come into evidence, as the Supreme Court dictated today," he added.

Merchan had originally scheduled Trump's sentencing for July 11 but agreed to postpone it, stating that he would decide whether the Supreme Court's ruling impacts the case by September 6.

"If such is still necessary," Merchan stated, sentencing could be pushed back until September 18.

Trump is facing a maximum of four years in prison.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's prosecution responded to Trump's request, stating that his arguments were "without merit" but that it agreed to delay the sentencing.

"Although we believe defendant's arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion," wrote Joshua Steinglass, an assistant district attorney.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said he does not believe Merchan will ultimately dismiss any of the prosecution's evidence.

Turley told Fox News, "The expectation is that Judge Merchan is not going to be inclined to order a new trial. The argument here is that you did indeed trip the wire during the trial because they incorporated conversations with people like Hope Hicks who gave her impressions about what the president was like in the Oval Office."

"It's not clear how it influenced the jury. The prosecutors are going to argue that this is sort of what is sometimes called a harmless error defense for prosecutors, an argument for prosecutors," Turley explained. "That you can remove that testimony and it wouldn't have made any difference, that the evidence was so strong in the view of the prosecution that it was harmless. So the question is whether Judge Merchan is going to be persuaded. He has historically ruled against the president, the expectation is that he will do so again."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!