A New York judge on Friday upheld President-elect Donald J. Trump's felony conviction but signalled that he was inclined to spare him any punishment, a striking development in a case that had spotlighted an array of criminal acts and imperilled the former and future President's freedom.

The judge, Juan M. Merchan, indicated that he favoured a so-called unconditional discharge of Trump’s sentence, a rare and lenient alternative to jail or probation. He set a sentencing date of January 10 and ordered Trump to appear either in person or virtually.

An unconditional discharge would cement Trump's status as a felon just weeks before his inauguration — he would be the first to carry that dubious designation into the presidency — even as it would water down the consequences for his crimes.

Unlike a conditional discharge, which allows defendants to walk free if they meet certain requirements, such as maintaining employment or paying restitution, an unconditional discharge would come without strings attached.

That sentence, Justice Merchan wrote in an 18-page decision, "appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow defendant to pursue his appellate options".

Trump, who could ask an appeals court to intervene and postpone the sentencing, was facing up to four years in prison. A Manhattan jury convicted him in May on 34 counts of falsifying business records, concluding that he had sought to cover up a sex scandal that threatened to derail his 2016 campaign for President.

Justice Merchan declined on Friday to overturn the jury’s verdict, rebuffing Trump's claim that his election victory should nullify his conviction.

And last month, the same judge rejected another argument Trump had mounted in hopes of getting the case dismissed: that his conviction had violated a recent Supreme Court ruling granting Presidents broad immunity for their official actions.

Together, Justice Merchan's two rulings picked apart Trump's legal manoeuvres, upholding the first criminal conviction of an American President and denying him the opportunity to clear his record before returning to the White House.

"To dismiss the indictment and set aside the jury verdict would not serve the concerns set forth by the Supreme Court in its handful of cases addressing presidential immunity nor would it serve the rule of law," Justice Merchan wrote in the Friday ruling.

"On the contrary, such decision would undermine the rule of law in immeasurable ways," the judge wrote, adding that "the sanctity of a jury verdict" was "a bedrock principle in our nation's jurisprudence".

The judge's ruling does not guarantee that Trump will face sentencing on January 10. In the coming days, his lawyers could ask an appeals court to grant an emergency pause on the sentencing. The appeals court could then rule within a matter of hours.

Alternatively, the President-elect could decide not to fight the sentencing, now that he knows the judge is unlikely to send him to jail.

There are some benefits to Trump's choice of route. Once sentenced, he is free to appeal his conviction and mount a drawn-out legal battle across his second presidential term.

While New York appeals courts might resist his efforts, he may ultimately fare better at the Supreme Court, where the 6-to-3 conservative majority includes three justices whom Trump appointed in his first term.

In a statement on Friday, a spokesman for Trump did not say whether the President-elect would seek to pause the proceedings, though he suggested that the sentencing could become a distraction.

New York Times News Service