NY Judge in Trump’s ‘Hush Money’ Trial Might Toss Felony Conviction
Merchan might throw out the conviction due to the Supreme Court ruling that a president has “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
Judge Juan Merchan has given himself until November 12 to decide what to do with President-elect Donald Trump’s sentencing over his felony conviction in the hush money case.
A jury convicted Trump on 34 counts for falsifying business records to cover up paying Stormy Daniels not to talk about their supposed affair.
Trump’s sentencing should take place on November 26.
However, Merchan might throw out the conviction due to the Supreme Court ruling that a president has “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
Merchan could sentence Trump to four years in prison. He could also sentence Trump to probation, community service, or even settle for a fine:
But if the judge decides to keep the conviction intact, the former president’s lawyers are expected to ask Merchan to delay Trump’s sentencing so they can appeal. And if that’s not granted, his attorneys are planning to appeal the immunity decision to state appellate courts and potentially all the way to the US Supreme Court to ask the courts to delay Trump’s sentencing until all appeals are exhausted, which could take months.
—
Any sentence, of course, will be complicated by the fact that Trump is set to take office on January 20, 2025. Trump’s lawyers are likely to shape their appeals to raise constitutional issues challenging whether a state judge can sentence a president-elect, which could tie the case up in courts for years.
I don’t know if the SCOTUS ruling would apply since the supposed payment was made in October 2016, a month before the election.
I’ll look into that more and update the post.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I say 4 years of community service as POTUS.
The big jury agrees.
For those who pushed this…. the Mike Nifong school of type writer repair has openings.
I don’t think they expect Florence residents to return to society…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADX_Florence
Possibly Judge Merchan is now considering how a Trump DOJ might define ‘election interference’. Possibly he is shaking in his shoes…
There is no such crime as “election interference”. There is nothing DOJ can charge him with in relation to the trial.
However if they start turning over rocks in his background there’s no telling what they might find…
This is simply untrue … why would you make such an overly broad assertion about federal law, no less. There are so many laws that you, personally, probably commit a few felonies a week … if not daily.
I would pop the judge with 18 USC ss 595 as it seems directly on point.
18 USC 595 applies only to administrative employees, in programs that receive federal funding. A judge (a real judge, that is, not an ALJ) is not an administrative employee, and as far as I know the NY judiciary receives no federal funding.
Your lefty tears are the best lefty tears, Milhouse.
You so want to join your screaming brethren and can’t.
Your frustration colors every post.
You are a liar and a servant of the Prince of Lies. Go back to Hell, demonspawn.
Regardless of when the payment was made, prez immunity remains an issue because much evidence was presented concerning communications between the President and staff during the administration.
Why won’t Merchan uphold the conviction and then sentence Trump to as much prison time as he can pile on?
Hasn’t that always been the aim?
He could do that. But, because immunity claims are immediately appealable. He can sentence Trump to prison but that sentence would immediately be stayed by an appellate court pending appellate review. In fact, had SCOTUS issued their presidential immunity opinion prior to trial starting, that immunity claim as applied to the facts of this case would have had to have been settled prior to the trial starting. The thought process is, if someone is immune from prosecution, it’s not enough to keep them out of prison. It must be a prohibition on the process of the prosecution itself.
Because the Secret Service won’t let anyone take the president to a prison.
Merchan isn’t going to do anything for Trump’s benefit. He would do this for Democrats benefit.
The strategy would be rather than having this thrown out on appeal in NY, complain about the Supreme Court and throw it out pre-emptively. A NY state Court loss does the Democrats no good.
This would allow them to further attempt to undermine the Supreme Court and the immunity decision (which was a very reasonable one)
If he does it, that is why.
Case should be dismissed with prejudice.
Honest ignorant question here. I was under the impression that someone is not considered officially convicted until such time actual sentence is handed down by the judge. Am I wrong? If I am right then Trump is not a convicted felon.
Correct.
actually, it’s when the judge signs the Order of Conviction
The trial has served its purpose. It was intended to brand Trump as a “convicted felon” for the purposes of the campaign. There are so many valid reasons to throw out the conviction on appeal that it would be better for Bragg and Merchan to toss it out before the appeal.
The purpose of all the lawfare against trump was to prevent his reelection. Since the election is over there is no longer a reason to keep up the pretense that trump broke any laws. Most of the lawfare cases likely/hopefully will go away now that their purpose is moot. Since with most of the cases the legal theory and process has been so bad that they would be thrown out on appeal making them go away is only logical. No need to be shamed by being overturned and no need to keep doing work when the over all purpose has failed.
“Don’t hang me, Sire.”
perhaps the “good” judge sees the IRS interested in his and his daughters business dealings.
and the new DOJ doing some investigating ….
judges can lose law licenses
This is misleading. Obviously paying Ms Daniels was not an official act, and neither were reimbursing Michael Cohen, or recording those reimbursements in his accounts.
At the time of the original payment he wasn’t even president; at the time of the reimbursements and the allegedly fraudulent accounting for same he was president, but they were still obviously private acts, not official acts, and thus not immune.
The issue here is not that the alleged crime might be immune from prosecution; it clearly isn’t. The issue is that under this ruling some of the evidence Bragg introduced to convince the jury that Trump had acted illegally, should have been privileged. E.g things he said at official meetings.
He raised the issue at the time, and Bragg could have played it safe by not relying on such evidence, but he chose not to. Now he may be about to pay the price for that. If Merchan decides that without that evidence the jury might not have convicted, then he must reverse the conviction.
Poisoned fruit, etc.
How might this have affected Watergate?
Problem I have with this particular branch of the lawfare attacks v Trump is I don’t see a crime. He a famous person who paid “go away” money to a person who otherwise could make money selling her story to the tabloids. Now if her story was that he assaulted or raped her or took showers with an underage girl or other chargable offense – that’s (arguably) criminal. He dated her. At worst, he “dated” her – ie – was her sugar daddy for sex. If that’s a crime it’s one not applied to the vast majority of folks that engage in it – again making this selective prosecution for political gain.
And…. let’s be honest here, Most guys could easily fantasize about being rich and famous for the sex, and at least a sizable % of the ladies would date rich and famous that otherwise they might not. Ask Kamala, btw.
The lady in question made her living having sex for money. It’s not a stretch to believe they had sex for money. I have yet to ever hear any other instance of a rich guy being prosecuted for paying blackmail money. On a consensual sex situation.
Prosecutors have great discretion in what they charge. In this situation I think the discretion was stretched a bit too far.
BobM, the alleged crime was neither the sex, nor the payments, nor even the reimbursements to Cohen. The alleged crime, believe if or not, was how those payments were accounted for in his internal, private ledger. For that he was charged with “falsifying business records”, which seems to be a crime peculiar to NY State.
It’s a “crime” peculiar not to just NY but to most of the courts on NY. Falsifying business records to conceal a crime IS a crime. The prosecution in THIS case is basically operating under the assumption that concealing an embarrassment (not a crime) is a crime.
Because…. Orange Man Bad.
It’s embarrassing to NY jurisprudence, it’s embarrassing to the USA justice system, and come November the 5th it was embarrassing enuf to enuf voters that it helped Trump get (re)elected. Apparently, there is a God.
“If Merchan decides that without that evidence the jury might not have convicted ….” Why wouldn’t it be whether the evidence was or was not a trivial part of the case? The judge gets to assume what the jury would have decided (on something non-trivial)?
My guess is that the judge tosses the conviction and blames the mean old SCOTUS. Trying to do something to Trump and getting it tossed on appeal just gives the Dems more bad press. This may also be a factor – https://nypost.com/2024/11/07/us-news/trump-ally-mike-davis-warns-ny-ag-letitia-james-to-back-off-president-elect/
You have it backwards. That is how a judge decides whether a problem with evidence was significant or trivial. If the jury would have reached the same conclusion without it then it’s a “harmless error” and doesn’t change the verdict. If the jury might have changed its verdict then it’s a significant error and requires reversal.
In NY, not all evidentiary error is subject to harmless error analysis. For example, admission of a statement taken in violation of the right to counsel is not subject to such analysis on the theory that what occurred was structural error. Admission of evidence barred as a constitutional matter by the Supreme Court’s immunity decision would, it seems to this retired NY criminal appellate practitioner, is just such a structural error.
Perhaps it is just because I am not versed in the law, but since when is settling out of court, or making nondisclosure deals, even “hush money” if that is what you need to call it, illegal?
Both parties were in agreement, a contract was signed, money was exchanged, and the alleged “victim” says there was no crime.
Is NYC now the “Minority Report” of U.S. legal systems, but without the technology?
None of that is illegal. The alleged crime was the bookkeeping entries that Trump’s accountant made to account for the reimbursements to Cohen. Entries made in a private accounting system that was not intended to be submitted to the IRS or to any other official body. The charge was “falsifying business records”, which seems to be a crime peculiar to NY.
Dems frequently overplay their hands get greedy…n later pay aprice
The conviction was a political gambit to influence the election, and indeed almost every single one of my Democrat friends mentioned at least once in every conversation, so arguably it did have some impact.
However, it didn’t have enough impact; Trump won.
So, now the question is, what is the best path for the Democrats in winding this thing up? Trump will not run again and this makes the exercise rather pointless. Further, there seems to be some reason to believe that when this case reaches the Federal appeals level it will be exposed as legally insufficient, and keeping it in the limelight may more publicly expose questionable decisions and actions by the key players.
So, it may be better for Merchan to toss the whole thing, while blaming the Supremes for protecting Trump. The Democrats like to claim that the court in in the bag for Republicans, so that would play nicely to their base as an excuse while allowing Merchan to continue as a judge without any picky picky investigations into his conduct.
It did have enough of an impact — to convince voters that the Democrats can’t be trusted with power.
Not the impact they wanted, but substantial all the same.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t labeling a ledger entry as hush money defeat the purpose of paying hush money? Or am I misunderstanding the meaning of the word “hush”? Who, in the history of hush money, has made such an entry into a ledger?
Logic and reasoning need not apply. Just think of the trial as Trump being a black man and a judge and jury wearing white hoods upheld the accusation of a white blonde woman.
If making false entries in ones own private ledger is a crime in NY, then it’s irrelevant that anyone in his position would have done the same. That’s not a defense. Nobody in the history of hush money has made such an entry, and therefore everyone who has done so in NY has committed a crime, at least according to the strange interpretation of the law that Bragg managed to convince the jurors to adopt.
Mike Davis just went scorched earth on “Big Tish”. He said: “listen here, sweetheart, we’re not messing around this time and we will put your fatass in prison for conspiracy against rights.”
https://x.com/DennisTynes/status/1854630091671695617
That was stupid of him. And it puts paid to any chance he ever had of being AG. If he’s nominated, his confirmation hearing will be an excrement show.
This is the sort of thing you do but you never threaten or bluster. And you certainly don’t call her sweetheart and talk about her allegedly corpulent posterior.
Then again if he already knows he’s not being considered for AG then he can play attack dog.
Not stupid, at all. Davis knows exactly what he’s doing. He is well aware. When some reporter asked him about a potential cabinet position he said that that was out of the question since he is “unconfirmable” because of the things he has said.
Naturally I disagree with you Justice Mulhouse. If we had more Conservatives prepared to do the hard work and tell Democrats what will happen to them when they fuck about AND then hold them accountable with prison time then maybe, just maybe they wouldn’t get up to half the crap that they do?
Your people aren’t in control anymore , Milhouse.
No one has to listen to your blather.. Trump won. Electorally and popularly.
America has spoken –we DON’T need to kowtow to Democrats so they’ll let us talk.
Fuck off, demonspawn.
Since Trump won the election the judge will throw out the conviction. He knows it will be overturned on appeal and he would be brutalized in the meantime. His gambit failed.
You’re presuming competence and sanity. I’d guess the judge will sentence Trump, the sentence will be suspended pending appeal, and the appeals court will get rid of this hot potato as fast as they can and overturn it. This gives the Dems their screeching “34 Felony convictions” talking point that they’ll be screeching for the next four…ten…thirty years long after Trump has passed away.
Merchan needs to be tossed off the bench. And then prosecuted.
In the other notable criminal case in Manhattan, the most recent observations from inside the courtroom indicate that it’s not going well for Daniel Penny. I’m really disappointed Fox News didn’t put someone on this story full-time. While there’s been some coverage, it’s been commentary not really reporting, only talking about the case from 2nd-hand sources. The behavior of the witnesses and prosecution and the refusal of the judge to stop it or even discourage it is hugely troubling. For instance…
https://twitter.com/beyondreasdoubt/status/1854651016341602610
“I’ve been a criminal defense attorney for a long, long time, and I was truly shocked at some of the testimony that the Court allowed today. (Penny’s lawyer objected, but was overruled.) And, the behavior by a large percentage of people in the audience borderlines on circus-like…
One of the witnesses had a clear agenda. Indeed, after he was done, the judge even noted he was an obviously “biased” witness. This person was clearly there to smear Penny and call him a “murderer” as many times as the Court would allow. (As background, he did not witness the encounter, and was only present after the train was in the station waiting for the police.)
He (inappropriately) testified in long soliloquies. At one point, he testified about how he tried to put some water on Neely’s face and that Penny stopped him. He then said and I QUOTE: it was like “an abuser abusing somebody and not letting someone near the abused.”
Reading that pissed me off. That’s not a fact witness. That was a character assassination.
This judge saw how the federal alligator stretched its jaws beyond the law for Trump.
In January, Trump will be the alligator. Just the motivation the judge would need to take another look-see at his jury instructions and rulings…
I suspect Merchan was anticipating an appointment to the federal bench. Now that that will not happen, I think he will set the verdict aside on the ground that inadmisstev
Continued — inadmissible evidence of immune behavior was introduced. The ball will be in Albin’s court to decide on whether he should appeal from that.
Again, presumption of both sanity and competence.