Manhattan prosecutors on Tuesday told the judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal case in New York that they did not oppose his request to postpone his sentencing next week, to consider whether the US supreme court’s recent ruling on immunity could imperil the conviction.

The final decision about sentencing rests with the judge, Juan Merchan. But judges typically grant motions when they are unopposed.

If Merchan agrees to postpone the sentencing as he re-evaluates the case, it would mark an unexpected setback for prosecutors in the Manhattan district attorney’s office and for the prospect of criminal accountability for Trump before the 2024 election, given that the other cases are indefinitely delayed.

Trump became the first president to be criminally convicted last month when a Manhattan jury found him guilty on all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in an illicit hush-money scheme to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

The sentencing had been set for 11 July – days before the start of the Republican national convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he was set to formally be named the GOP nominee for president – after his own lawyers requested that timetable.

But the expected sentencing date was cast into doubt after Trump’s lawyers asked to have the case re-evaluated, and the sentencing postponed, in light of the supreme court’s decision on Monday that conferred broad immunity on former presidents for official acts undertaken in office.

The supreme court held that core executive functions of the presidency have absolute immunity from prosecution, official acts of the presidency are presumptively immune, and unofficial acts carry no immunity.

Trump’s criminal prosecution in New York was largely centered on his efforts to suppress negative stories during the 2016 election campaign and pre-dated his time in office, though some of the evidence at trial included personal actions Trump took while he was president.

The motion from Trump to set aside his conviction based on the supreme court’s ruling is expected to be an uphill struggle because Trump’s conduct relevant to the trial – signing checks to reimburse the hush-money payments – is widely seen to have been in a personal capacity.

But in a letter to the judge, Trump’s lawyers contended that the conviction should be thrown out because prosecutors built their case on evidence from his time in the White House, and the supreme court also held that official acts cannot be used as evidence at all to bolster a criminal case.

In a letter to the judge responding to Trump’s request, prosecutors wrote that the Manhattan district attorney’s office did not oppose Trump’s request.

“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, one of the lead prosecutors who secured Trump’s conviction.