Left: Donald Trump speaks after voting in the Florida primary election in Palm Beach, Fla., Tuesday, March 19, 2024 (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee). Right: New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan poses for a picture in his chambers in New York, Thursday, March 14, 2024 (AP Photo/Seth Wenig).
President-elect Donald Trump must report for sentencing next week to account for his 34 felony convictions in the New York City-based hush-money case, the judge overseeing the matter ruled on Friday.
In an 18-page decision and order, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan denied myriad reprieves filed by the 45th and future 47th president’s legal team during the final weeks and months of 2024.
Assuming an oftentimes chiding tone, the judge put fire to formalized hopes expressed by Trump that his convictions might become dead letter by binning the notion of immunity for a president-elect.
“[T]his Court finds that Presidential immunity from criminal process for a sitting president does not extend to a President-elect,” Merchan writes. “To begin, the Constitution dictates that only a President, after taking the oath of office, has the authority of the Chief Executive, a President-elect does not. Accordingly, a President-elect is not permitted to avail himself of the protections afforded to the individual occupying that Office.”
In one particularly critical passage, Merchan takes stock of Trump’s character.
“Defendant’s disdain for the Third Branch of government, whether state or federal, in New York or elsewhere, is a matter of public record,” the order goes on. “Indeed, Defendant has gone to great lengths to broadcast on social media and other forums his lack of respect for judges, juries, grand juries and the justice system as a whole.”
To that end, Merchan says, Trump’s historical and ongoing disdain for legal proceedings he dislikes was considered by the court as a factor in his request to dismiss the indictment and convictions.
“Defendant’s character and history vis-a-vis the Rule of Law and the Third Branch of government must be analyzed under this factor in direct relation to the result he seeks, and in that vein, it does not weigh in his favor,” Merchan writes.
Throughout November and December, defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove engaged in a rigorous back-and-forth with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg about the proper course of action in light of Trump’s 2024 landslide election win.
Trump’s team argued that sentencing simply cannot and should not occur. The district attorney disputed those arguments.
The prosecution, for their part, also essayed various ways — one of them derided by the defense as “irresponsible” and “troubling” — for proceedings to either be paused or effectively terminated.
Merchan rejected those suggestions both implicitly and outright.
“This Court rejects Defendant’s claim that proceeding with sentencing is precluded as a matter of law,” the order reads. “This Court has considered and now rejects the People’s suggestion that it adopt the ‘Alabama Rule’ which would preserve the jury verdict while terminating the proceedings as such a remedy would deny Defendant the pathway he needs to exhaust his appellate rights.”
Instead, the court ordered the defendant to appear for sentencing on Jan. 10, explaining Trump’s own efforts thus far in the case led to the upcoming sentencing date.
From the order, at length:
[W]hile Defendant now claims this Court cannot and must not sentence Defendant, the record is clear that Defendant not only consented to, but in fact requested the very adjournment that led us down the path we are on. As the parties are aware, it was on Defendant’s application, without opposition from the People, that sentence was adjourned until after the Presidential election. Any claim Defendant may have that circumstances have changed as a result of Defendant’s victory in the Presidential election, while convenient, is disingenuous. Defendant has always pronounced, since the inception of this case, confidence and indeed the expectation, that he would prevail in the 2024 Election — confidence that has proven well-founded. That he would become the “President-elect” and be required to assume all the responsibilities that come with the transition were entirely anticipated. Thus, it was fair for this Court to trust that his request to adjourn sentencing until after the election carried with it the implied consent that he would face sentence during the window between the election and the taking of the oath of office. The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump has delayed sentence — not precluded it.
Merchan did, however, offer Trump several legal points of light.
The foremost salve for the president-elect is that he almost certainly no longer faces the potential of any time behind bars — at all; not any time soon, and not any time after his next term in office ends in 2029.
“While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an, opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation,” the order reads.
The judge goes on to muse that the “most viable solution to ensure finality” and allow Trump to exhaust his appellate rights is by sentencing him to “unconditional discharge.” This form of sentence equates to no further consequences and is typically used when a judge determines there is no practical import to imposing any legal disability on a convicted criminal defendant.
Finally, in terms of wins for the defense, Merchan also ruled that Trump can appear virtually for the slated sentencing hearing.
While the judge fashioned his ruling as largely supine to the grandeur, demands and power of the executive branch, he maintained a certain level of harsh language for Trump himself.
From the order, at length:
Here, 12 jurors unanimously found Defendant guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records with the intent to defraud, which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote a presidential election by unlawful means. It was the premeditated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world that is the gravamen of this offense. To vacate this verdict on the grounds that the charges are insufficiently serious given the position Defendant once held, and is about to assume again, would constitute a disproportionate result and cause immeasurable damage to the citizenry’s confidence in the Rule of Law.
Merchan also criticizes Trump for his ongoing efforts to litigate — both formally and informally — other ancillary matters.
The court noted Trump “continues to attack” and “continues to undermine” the gag order issued in the case — emphasizing that the order has even been given the once-over by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“It is therefore bewildering to this Court that Defendant continues to file such papers,” the order goes on.
The court also bemoans how Trump “continues to mount the same baseless attacks” on Merchan over an alleged conflict of interest due to his daughter’s career as a political consultant for the institutional Democratic Party. Those allegations, Merchan notes, have repeatedly been rejected by appellate courts.
“The frequency of the claims and escalating rhetoric in each subsequent motion — does not render the claims true or valid,” the judge writes. “They are not and it is irresponsible and deeply concerning for counsel to insist on advancing these claims.”
Dovetailing with issues of repetitive filings going nowhere is an extensive criticism of Trump’s legal team.
Footnote 2, which spans several pages, begins:
This Court recognizes that the lawyering by both the prosecution and the Defense has been exceptional and spirited throughout the entirety of this case. lt is clear that the People have prosecuted this matter to the best of their abilities and the Defense has represented their client zealously. There have however, been instances when in written submissions, counsel has come dangerously close to crossing the line of zealous representation and the professional advocacy one would expect from members of the bar and officers of the court and this Court has at times, made counsel aware of its observations and concerns. Now however, counsel has resorted to language, indeed rhetoric, that has no place in legal pleadings. For example, countless times in their Motion to Dismiss, counsel accuses the prosecution and this Court of engaging in “unlawful” and “unconstitutional” conduct. These same terms are also peppered throughout Defendant’s Reply. Those words, by definition, mean “criminally punishable.” Viewed in full context and mindful of the parties to this action, such arguments, in the broader picture, have the potential to create a chilling effect on the Third Branch of government.
After his electoral victory, Trump announced that Blanche and Bove would serve in his forthcoming administration. The two decorated lawyers are set to serve as the deputy attorney general and principal associate deputy attorney general, respectively.
