In a surprising turn of events, former President Donald Trump's sentencing in his New York criminal case has been postponed following a landmark Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. The decision, which grants broad immunity to former presidents for official acts, has raised questions about the use of evidence related to unofficial activities in prosecutions.

The postponement came after Trump's legal team sent a letter to New York Justice Juan Merchan, requesting permission to file a motion to throw out the verdict in Trump's case. Justice Merchan granted the request, pushing back the sentencing date from July 11 to September 18 to consider the motion.

Experts, however, remain skeptical of Trump's chances to overturn his conviction. Bennett Gershman, a former New York prosecutor and law professor at Pace University, argued that if Trump engaged in unlawful conduct before becoming president, his efforts while in office to cover it up cannot be immunized from criminal liability.

Trump's lawyers indicated that their motion will focus on evidence introduced at trial, such as social media posts, public statements, and witness testimony from his time in office. Much of this evidence pertained to a "pressure campaign" in 2018 aimed at preventing Trump's ex-attorney, Michael Cohen, from revealing incriminating information.

The conviction in May saw Trump found guilty of 34 counts of falsification of business records for his involvement in a scheme to cover up reimbursements for a "hush money" payment to an adult film star during his 2016 presidential campaign.

CBS News legal analyst Rikki Klieman highlighted the contextual significance of the scheme, stating that it was unlikely that the conviction would be reversed. She emphasized that the case centered around conduct prior to Trump's presidency that sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

Gary Galperin, a Cardozo Law School professor and former Manhattan prosecutor, explained that even if some evidence should not have been shown at trial, the verdict may not be set aside if there is enough evidence beyond the "official acts" to sustain the conviction.

If Justice Merchan concludes that enough evidence and testimony related to official acts were introduced during the trial, he may point out the exact pieces of evidence that violate the Supreme Court's opinion. Prosecutors could use this guidance if they decide to seek another trial.

In the event that the verdict is set aside, experts believe the government would likely move to re-try the case, excluding any evidence that Judge Merchan deems in violation of the Supreme Court decision.

As the case enters a new phase, speculation arises about the possibility of Cohen being asked to testify against Trump once again. Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and outspoken critic, endured four days of intense examination during the trial. Whether he would be willing to go through that process again remains uncertain.

The coming months will likely see the legal battles intensify, as both sides prepare to present their arguments and seek resolution in this highly anticipated case.