« On morning of scheduled federal trial, Hunter Biden attempts to enter an Alford plea | Main | "Recidivist Organizational Offenders and the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines" »
September 6, 2024
Former Prez Trump's state sentencing date push to week of Thanksgiving
As reported in this New York Times piece, the "judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s criminal case in Manhattan postponed his sentencing until after Election Day, a significant victory for the former president as he seeks to overturn his conviction and win back the White House." Here is more from the start of the article:
In a ruling on Friday, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, rescheduled the sentencing for Nov. 26. He had previously planned to hand down Mr. Trump’s punishment on Sept. 18, just seven weeks before Election Day, when Mr. Trump will face off against Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency.
While the decision will avert a courtroom spectacle in the campaign’s final stretch, the delay itself could still affect the election, keeping voters in the dark about whether the Republican presidential nominee will eventually spend time behind bars.
It is unclear whether sentencing Mr. Trump in September would have helped or harmed him politically; his punishment could have been an embarrassing reminder of his criminal record, but could have also propelled his claims of political martyrdom.
Justice Merchan’s decision came at the request of Mr. Trump, who had asked to delay the sentencing until after the election, partly so he had more time to challenge his conviction. Prosecutors working for the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, who brought the case, had deferred to the judge, paving the way for at least a brief postponement.
UPDATE: I have now seen this letter released by Justice Merchan to explain his adjuornment decision. Here are a few key passages:
'This matter is one that stands alone, in a unique place in this Nation's history, and this Court has presided over it since its inception — from arraignmcnt to jury verdict and a plenitude of motions and other matters in-between. Were this Court to decide, after careful consideration of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump, that this case should proceed, it would be faced with one of the most critical and difficult decisions a trial court judge faces — the sentencing of a defendant found guilty of crimes by a unanimous jury of his peers....
Unfoftunately, we are now at a placeirn time that is fraught with complexities rendering the requirements of a sentencing hearing, should one be necessary, difficult to execute. Thus, in accordance with certain of the grounds submitted by Defendant and the reasons for adiournment provided by the People coupled with the unique time frame this matter currently finds itself in, the decision on the CPL § 330.30 motion and the imposition of sentence will be adjourned to avoid any appearance — however unwarranted — that the proceeding has been affected by or seeks to affect the approaching Presidential election in which the Defendant is a candidate.
September 6, 2024 at 01:26 PM | Permalink
Comments
Years ago I represented a tax protestor in federal court in Los Angeles whom the court (and everyone else) hated. But I put up a zealous defense; so zealous in fact that the judge started badgering me and questioning my legal skills before the jury. After repeatedly being humiliated in various ways, I said I wanted to make a motion outside the presence of the jury. The judge cleared the courtroom. I moved for a mistrial based on the judge's having belittled me before the jury, arguing that such conduct prejudiced my client. The judge asked for the government's position. The AUSA stood up and said, "Your Honor, we submit the matter to the Court." Upon hearing this, the judge jumped up from his chair and yelled out, "well, if the government won't defend the court..." Realizing the blunder, the AUSA tried to object to the motion, but the judge cut her off, saying "too late...way too late... motion GRANTED."
So back to here. When the state told judge Merchan it left to the court Trump's motion to continue sentencing, Merchan thought to himself, "well if the damned state won't take a position, screw them, motion GRANTED."
Posted by: old federal defender | Sep 6, 2024 3:15:33 PM
Merchan blinked. I think he took one look at Trump’s federal motion, as well as the most recently filed ethics complaint, and he took the easy way out. Judge Hellerstein didn’t not remotely come close to dealing with the issues raised in Trump’s brief regarding removal, including those regarding Merchan’s bias. With a September 18th sentencing date, the Second Circuit was highly likely to act. Merchan’s move makes that less likely.
The federal judiciary is an embarrassment. It defies belief that a federal judge would utterly fail to address issues raised by a presidential candidate in a case that has clear partisan overtones.
Posted by: Yet-Yet | Sep 6, 2024 3:34:48 PM
OFD, seems to me that the state really couldn’t argue that the sentencing had to happen. It conceded that evidence relating to Trump’s official acts was admitted in the case. So it really couldn’t argue too strenuously that Trump should be sentenced before his immunity has been finally adjudicated.
Posted by: Yet-Yet | Sep 6, 2024 10:13:19 PM
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't trust this case. But regardless of that, postponing sentencing has to be the right call. The Feds have their 90 day rule for good reasons.
Posted by: William Jockusch | Sep 7, 2024 5:55:45 AM
No other defendant would have gotten his sentence continued. This is not a federal court and there is no right to an interlocutory appeal on a ruling related to a motion to dismiss or a motion for new trial. Normal procedure would be an immediate sentencing after the denial of the motion for new trial regardless of the merits of the claims. I can't think of a case that I have been involved in in which the judge gave the defendant time to seek an emergency writ before sentencing (and almost certainly none would be granted as an appeal of the final judgment would be an adequate remedy).
Posted by: tmm | Sep 7, 2024 9:32:39 AM
This is such a unique case/conviction with such a unique defendant at such a unique moment, I could come up with any number of theories (suppositions) to account for this delay. At a simple level, perhpas Justice Merchan would just rather not have the last seven weeks of a Prez campaign focused excessivly on his (difficult) sentencing decision. At a game-theory level, perhpas Justice Merchan wants Trump's lawyers to be in a position to warn Trump that his post-election behaviors could impact his sentencing fate. Cf. US v. Bryson, 229 F.3d 425, 426 (2d Cir 2000) (“[A] court’s duty is always to sentence the defendant as he stands before the court on the day of sentencing”).
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 7, 2024 11:09:06 AM
One thing Trump should fear, having gained the postponement from the September 18, 2024 date until after the election on November 5th, if Trump loses the election Judge Merchan may well sentence him to prison, and Trump will have nowhere to run and hide! In Trump's world, he can only delay all of this for so long, but after he has lost the election and won't be going back to the Oval Office, the prosecutors and juries are going to eat him alive. Be careful what you ask for, because you may get it!
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Sep 8, 2024 11:59:24 AM
tmm is correct thar this defendant is getting special treatment—an ethically-challenged judge, a cobbled-together crime, a politicized prosecution—but tmm is also wrong—immunity has to be challengeable on appeal before the final adjudication.
Don’t believe me? Spokesman for DOJ SDNY seems to think the case is BS.
Posted by: Yet-Yet | Sep 8, 2024 12:10:15 PM
Mr. Gormley—just wondering—do you even care about the obvious partisanship in these prosecutions?
Posted by: Yet-Yet | Sep 8, 2024 5:37:08 PM
tmm, how is an appeal an adequate remedy when the question is federal immunity from trial?
Posted by: federalist | Sep 9, 2024 2:40:10 PM
The trial has already happened. At this point, the claim is not immunity from trial but a claim of evidentiary error. Additionally, not every state allows you to appeal decisions on immunity. My state does not. If you lose on immunity at trial, you need to file an extraordinary writ which can be denied without explanation.
My expectation would be that my state would treat a claim of immunity at the post-trial stage as something that can be handled on appeal.
Posted by: tmm | Sep 9, 2024 7:23:14 PM
tmm, that does not seem correct at all--whatever the state's procedure is, it has to allow for immunity under federal law to be resolved prior to trial or failing that because they screwed up, judgment of conviction.
And on top of that, you have an ethically-challenged judge (this is indisputable), a prosecutor who specifically campaigned on getting Trump and a NY jury adjudicating campaign finance law. The Clinton-appointed federal judge didn't even bother to address Trump's arguments.
Everyone knows this case is garbage, and yet you posit that Trump is getting special treatment. Of course, Hunter's special treatment, and the abuse of the whistleblowers, somehow escapes your criticism.
Posted by: federalist | Sep 9, 2024 8:12:11 PM
Yet-Yet: I have a different view of the multiple prosecutions of former President Trump. I don't see them as partisan. Trump is the most rogue former President America has ever seen. Trump has committed many serious crimes, including crimes against the American voters and citizenry. I don't think he should get a "pass" from being prosecuted just because he is a former President and current candidate for the office again. I hew to the fundamental American principle that in America, no man is above the law. As the former television detective Tony Baretta used to say, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Trump deserves what he is getting now. And after he loses the November 2024 election, he will have nowhere to run and hide. He will get what he has coming.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Sep 10, 2024 6:32:18 AM
