“This letter addresses defendant’s August 14, 2024 letter requesting an adjournment of the sentencing date. The People defer to the Court on the appropriate post-trial schedule that allows for adequate time to adjudicate defendant’s CPL § 330.30 motion while also pronouncing sentence ‘without unreasonable delay.’ To assist the Court, we note the following points.”

“Defendant’s letter indicates for the first time his intent to seek interlocutory state or federal appellate review, before he is sentenced, of any adverse ruling on his CPL § 330.30 motion. It is correct that the denial of immunity from prosecution is immediately appealable. But here, in contrast to defendant’s criminal case in DC, the question of defendant’s immunity from prosecution is not presented; the only question now before the Court is whether a small subset of the trial evidence was improperly admitted in light of a brand-new evidentiary rule that derives from official-acts immunity, and if so, whether any error in admitting official-acts evidence was harmless.’ The Supreme Court’s recent decision did not consider whether a trial court’s ruling on that distinct evidentiary question is immediately appealable, and there are strong reasons why it should not be.”

“Nonetheless, given the defense’s newly-stated position, we defer to the Court on whether an adjournment is warranted to allow for orderly appellate litigation of that question, or to reduce the risk of a disruptive stay from an appellate court pending consideration of that question. The People are prepared to appear for sentencing on any future date the Court sets,” writes Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office to Judge Juan Merchan ahead of the September 18th sentencing date.

TLDR: The Supreme Court purposely fucked them by waiting until the trial was over to issue a ruling throwing into doubt whether the small amount of evidence that could conceivably fall under the purview of their ruling had been admissible, so Bragg is content to wait for the next move.