President-elect Donald Trump must appear for sentencing next week to explain his 34 felony convictions in the New York City hush-money case, the judge overseeing the case ruled on Friday.
In an 18-page decision and order, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan denied numerous reprieve requests filed by the 45th and future 47th president’s legal teams in the final weeks and months of 2024.
The judge, in an often-chiding tone, put an end to Trump’s formalized hopes that his convictions would become dead letters by rejecting the concept 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,” the judge writes. “To begin, the Constitution states that only a President, after taking the oath of office, has the authority of the Chief Executive; a President-Elect does not.
As a result, a President-elect is not entitled to the same protections as the person who currently holds that office.”
In one particularly critical passage, Merchan assesses Trump’s personality.
“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 court’s order continues.
“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 claims that the court considered Trump’s historical and ongoing disdain for legal proceedings he dislikes when deciding whether 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,” according to Merchan.
Throughout November and December, defense attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove debated with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg the best course of action in light of Trump’s landslide victory in the 2024 presidential election.
Trump’s team contended that sentencing simply cannot and should not happen. The district attorney disputed those claims.
The prosecution, for their part, proposed various ways — one of which the defense described as “irresponsible” and “troubling” — to halt or effectively terminate proceedings.
Merchan rejected those suggestions, both implicitly and explicitly.
“This Court rejects Defendant’s claim that proceeding with sentencing is precluded as a matter of law,” the decree 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 January 10, explaining that Trump’s efforts in the case had led to the upcoming sentencing date.
From the order, in 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, provide Trump with several legal points of clarification.
The most significant relief for the president-elect is that he is almost certainly no longer facing the possibility of spending time in prison — at all; not anytime soon, and not 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 judge’s decision states.
The judge goes on to suggest that the “most viable solution to ensure finality” and allow Trump to exhaust his appellate rights is to sentence him to “unconditional discharge.”
This type of sentence carries no additional consequences and is typically used when a judge determines that imposing any legal disability on a convicted criminal defendant is not practical.
Finally, in terms of defense wins, Merchan ruled that Trump can appear virtually for the scheduled sentencing hearing.
While the judge framed his decision as largely indifferent to the grandeur, demands, and power of the executive branch, he used harsh language to describe Trump himself.
From the order, in 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 litigation, both formally and informally, over other ancillary issues.
The court stated that Trump “continues to attack” and “undermine” the gag order issued in the case, emphasizing that the order has even been reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.
“It is therefore bewildering to this Court that Defendant continues to file such papers,” according to the order.
The court also expresses concern that Trump “continues to mount the same baseless attacks” on Merchan over an alleged conflict of interest stemming from his daughter’s work as a political consultant for the institutional Democratic Party. Merchan notes that appellate courts have repeatedly rejected these allegations.
“The frequency of the claims and escalating rhetoric in each subsequent motion — does not render the claims true or valid,” the court’s ruling states. “They are not and it is irresponsible and deeply concerning for counsel to insist on advancing these claims.”
An extensive criticism of Trump’s legal team revolves around the issue of repetitive filings that go nowhere.
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.
