Donald Trump speaks in Florida on March 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee), Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)
Former President Donald Trump lost out twice in one day in appellate court on two issues central to his public criticisms of the hush-money trial, namely that he can’t get a fair trial in liberal, media-driven Manhattan and can’t get a fair trial before a “conflicted” judge whose daughter has done political consulting work for Democrats.
On Thursday, the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, refused to move the trial venue out of Manhattan and to any one of Suffolk County (Long Island), Orange County (Hudson Valley), Richmond County (Staten Island), or Rockland County (on the other side of the Hudson River).
“Now, upon reading and filing the papers with respect to the motion, and due deliberation having been had thereon,” the court briefly said, “It is ordered that the motion is denied.”
In yet another loss for Trump but with a lengthier explanation, the appellate court refused to find that Acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan improperly decided not to recuse himself from the case.
Recall that Merchan updated the existing gag order in the falsification of business records felony case after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) and his team argued that Trump should be barred from verbally attacking the families of trial participants, including the judge’s daughter, Loren Merchan.
Trump’s defense had claimed that the former president’s sharing of posts that included Loren Merchan’s name and photo was “properly understood” as a criticism of her father’s non-recusal.
“President Trump’s social media posts amplified defense arguments regarding the need for recusal that have been, and will continue to be, the subject of motion practice,” the defense said previously. “The posts also addressed specific political opponents who are clients of Authentic, where Your Honor’s daughter is a partner and executive, and responded to media reports regarding a social media account attributed to Your Honor’s daughter.”
Trump even filed a lawsuit under Article 78 against the judge, recycling a tactic that did not succeed in his civil fraud trial.
On Thursday, the appellate court dismissed the Article 78 suit as “time-barred” but noted noted the petitioner otherwise fell short of persuasively arguing Merchan abused his discretion.
“The petition was also filed prior to the court’s subsequent order denying his second motion seeking recusal, and thus, any challenge to the subsequent order was not ripe at the time of filing,” the court explained. “In any event, petitioner has failed to establish that the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by denying his motion.”
Trump, the decision said without reaching the merits of the former president’s claims, additionally “has not established that he has a clear right to recusal” under state law.
Should Trump want to raise these arguments again, he can do so in the context of a “direct appeal” if he is convicted, court documents said.
Granting the appellate relief Trump sought would only “interfere with the normal trial and appellate procedures, and, without opining on the merits, the matters herein identified by petitioner may be raised in a direct appeal,” the court said, adding that Trump’s “remaining arguments” were “unavailing.”
Trump’s defense rested its case Tuesday without calling the former president to the witness stand, despite Trump’s earlier insistence that he “would testify, absolutely.”
Merchan in early May took it upon himself to clear up a falsehood that Trump told about the gag order he’s repeatedly violated in the case. Trump had said the gag order prevented him from testifying, but Merchan said that was not the case at all.
“I want to stress to Mr. Trump: You have an absolute right to testify at trial,” the judge said.
Trump ultimately decided to waive that right, he said, because the judge “made rulings that make it very difficult to testify.”
“Anything I did, anything I did in the past, they can bring everything up, and you know what, I’ve had a great past—but anything,” Trump reportedly said, also saying why testify when Manhattan DA has “no case.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
