Former President Donald Trump is scheduled to begin his trial in New York City later this month over charges stemming from alleged hush-money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Yet in a move which could prove devastating to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's efforts, Trump is seeking to have the start date pushed back. 

Former president's lawyers cite Supreme Court hearing

According to Fox News, Trump's lawyers requested on Monday that Manhattan Judge Juan Manuel Merchan adjourn the proceedings indefinitely.

They cited the Supreme Court's announcement in February that it will hear arguments over whether Trump enjoys immunity for actions he took while in office.

The former president's attorneys maintain that some of the evidence and alleged actions in the New York case date back to his time in office and thus could be affected by a Supreme Court ruling in his favor.

"The Court should adjourn the trial pending Supreme Court review of the scope of the presidential immunity doctrine in Trump v. United States, which is scheduled to be argued before the Supreme Court on April 25, 2024," Fox News quoted the motion as stating.

Six counts dismissed from Trump's Georgia case

It went on to maintain that the trial should be "adjourned "following an evidentiary hearing outside the presence of the jury, preclude evidence of President Trump’s official acts at trial based on presidential immunity."

Fox News noted that the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the matter on April 25, and many legal observers believe the matter may not be decided until June.

New York was not the only jurisdiction to see Trump-related legal developments this week, as on Wednesday Fulton County Judge Scott McAffee dismissed multiple charges in his Georgia racketeering case.

As Fox News noted, McAffee found that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' office had failed to provide sufficient detail for six counts of "solicitation of violation of oath by public officer."

Charges "do not give the defendants enough information"

"The Court’s concern is less that the State has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the Defendants – in fact it has alleged an abundance," McAffee wrote.

"However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned opinion, fatal," the judge asserted.

"As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited," he explained.

McAffee went on to stress that the charges "do not give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently, as the Defendants could have violated the Constitutions and thus the statute in dozens, if not hundreds, of distinct ways."