Last Updated on 04/09/2024 by Arun jain
As Donald J. As Trump’s criminal trial ended in May, one of his lawyers wanted to give unusual instructions to the jury that would make it more difficult to convict him. The lawyer argued that a special case required special rules and that the first prosecution of a former US president was “obviously an extraordinarily important case”.
The judge, Justice Juan M. Merchan was undeterred. “What you’re asking me to do is change the law, and I’m not going to do that,” he said.
Justice Murchan has consistently tried to approach the landmark case as no different from the hundreds of others he has overseen. But more than three months after the Manhattan jury Mr. Trump was indicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal.The veteran judge faces his biggest dilemma yet: He must decide whether to sentence Mr. Trump as planned on Sept. 18 or wait until Election Day. As Mr. Trump has requested.
Justice Merchan has already agreed to delay sentencing once, and his next decision — which will come in the heat of a presidential campaign that has pitted Mr. Trump against Vice President Kamala Harris — will reverberate well beyond his lower Manhattan courtroom.
The decision could influence not only the election, but American politics for years to come. And that would almost certainly subject Justice Merchan to once-biased second-guessing When the Supreme Court’s decisions have shaken the country’s faith in the judiciary on abortion, guns and other issues, as well as revelations about some of its judges’ own political entanglements.
“The judge is in an impossible situation, and one that does not lend itself to easy comparisons,” said Charles Geh, a law professor at Indiana University Bloomington who specializes in judicial conduct and ethics, adding that Justice Merchan’s decision ” The implications will be historic.”
While Mr. Trump is already a convicted felon, if Justice Merchan postpones his sentencing until the Nov. 5 election, the American people will vote without knowing whether Mr. Trump will spend time behind bars.
The delay has also rewarded Mr. Trump’s stalling tactics throughout the case, and the impression the judge has worked hard to dispel will have far-reaching consequences — that the former president is above the law.
Yet if Justice Merchan, a moderate Democrat who was once a registered Republican, were to impose the sentence just seven weeks before Election Day, Mr. Trump would undoubtedly accuse him of trying to tip the campaign in favor of Ms. Harris.
Some of Justice Merchan’s colleagues, while acknowledging his confusion, predicted that he would cut through the political noise and issue a rational decision. They noted that the judge maintained his usual stoic demeanor while presiding over the trial, even as Mr. Trump attacked him and his family, and falsely claimed they were members of the Democratic cabal.
Whatever decision Judge Merchan makes will not only be the right decision, it will not be driven by anything other than what happened in the context of this case,” said retired judge Jill Konwiser, who has known Justice Merchan for more than 15 years. .
“Donald Trump will be treated fairly,” she added. “Of that, I’m 100 percent sure.”
Mr Geh was similarly impressed by Justice Merchan’s restraint during the trial, and expected a measured approach to sentencing.
“Within some quarters of the judiciary, a judge is likely to be screaming from the room and looking for the least difficult way out,” he said. “But I don’t think this guy is showing his signs.”
After finalizing Mr. Trump’s sentencing date, Justice Merchan faces even more delicate decisions. The judge promised to rule this month on Mr. Trump’s request that presidents be given some immunity from prosecution in light of a new Supreme Court ruling. And, at some point, he will have to decide whether to actually put Mr. Trump behind bars.
Mr. Trump, the first president to be convicted, faces up to four years in prison. But legal experts believe Justice Merchan is more likely to sentence Mr. Trump to a few months in jail or probation.
Whatever his sentence, Mr Trump is unlikely to serve prison time before the election. If Judge Sep. Even if sentenced on the 18th, he could postpone any sentencing until after Election Day, or, if Mr. Trump wins back in the White House, until his second term ends.
Nor is Justice Merchan likely to have the final say. The former president will appeal his conviction in higher courts, and if Justice Merchan sticks with his plan to sentence him on Sept. 18, Mr. Trump will likely appeal that decision as well.
Mr. Trump’s attempt to delay his sentencing coincides with his political struggles. Ms. Harris’ entry into the presidential race this summer boosted the campaign and erased Mr. Trump’s lead in many polls, both nationwide and in crucial swing states.
Initially, Justice Merchan was set to sentence Mr. Trump in mid-July. But on 1 July The Supreme Court granted Mr. Trump broad immunity from prosecution for his official acts as president. Mr Trump’s lawyers immediately petitioned Justice Merchan to delay the sentencing so he could consider a guilty plea in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, agreed to the delay, but argued that the High Court’s decision had “no bearing” on the case.
A New York jury in May convicted Mr. Trump of falsifying business records to hide his involvement in hush-money payments to a porn star, Stormi Daniels, who threatened before the 2016 election to reveal a sex story with Mr. Trump.
Prosecutors argued that it was a personal and political scandal unrelated to Mr. Trump’s White House duties and therefore not affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
However, Justice Merchan It was agreed to rule on the immunity issue in early September And then punish Mr. Trump. Unsatisfied, Mr. Trump sought a third time to throw the judge out of the case, claiming that his daughter was having an affair with Ms. Harris.
the judge refused to step asideand condemned Mr. Trump’s “blasphemous and misbehavior,” but the former president successfully orchestrated another delay. The judge pushed back the immunity ruling until September 16, two days before the scheduled sentencing.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers then tried to use that tight timeline to their advantage, arguing that he would not have enough time to appeal if Justice Merchan rejected the immunity bid. They argue that it was only fair to punt until after the election.
Mr. Bragg, a Democrat, skirted the partisan crossfire and declined to support or oppose the former president’s request, saying that while the schedule poses challenges, the sentencing must occur “without unreasonable delay.”
Mr. Bragg’s lawyers noted separately that the scheduling problems Mr. Trump lamented stemmed from his own “strategic and explosive litigation tactics.”
Late last week, Mr. Trump devised yet another delaying strategy, this time seeking to move the case to federal court, again citing the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.
But on Tuesday, A federal judge rejected Mr. Trump’s immunity claimnoted that “hush-money payments were private, unofficial acts outside the bounds of executive authority.”
While Mr. Trump intends to appeal, the ruling keeps the case in Judge Merchan’s courtroom for now.
Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics, said Justice Murch should explain the reasoning behind any decision.
“A fair-minded member of the public would think this is an appropriate sentence,” Mr Gillers said. “And the way you do it is in detail.”
In more than a year of overseeing the case, Justice Murchan has resisted many of Mr. Trump’s bold maneuvers, stressing the need to be fair to the former president.
In March, he delayed the trial for three weeks to allow Mr. Trump’s lawyers to review additional evidence, but declined to adjourn it for several months longer as they had requested.
Although he allowed most of the prosecution’s case to go forward, he tossed out some of what he considered weaker evidence.
And while he imposed a gag order on Mr. Trump that barred him from attacking witnesses, prosecutors and the judge’s own family, he resisted jailing Mr. Trump for repeatedly violating the order.
“Mr. Trump, it’s important to understand that the last thing I want to do is put you in jail,” he said in court in early May. “You are a former president of the United States, and possibly the next president.”
Martin HorneProfessor Emeritus and Executive Director at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice New York State Sentencing Commissionpredicted that, despite Mr. Trump’s protests, Justice Merchan would again try to treat the former president as “any other defendant before the bar.”
“A potentially troublesome defendant, an argumentative defendant,” Mr. Horne said, “but just a defendant“
Post In deciding when to sentence Trump, the judge faces an ‘impossible’ task appeared first New York Times.