Judge Merchan Attempts to Justify His Actions Following Trump’s Sentencing, Yet Both He and Bragg Are Accountable for the Situation

On Friday, the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump featured one of the most passionate defense arguments witnessed at such hearings in recent years … from the judge himself.

Acting Justice Juan Merchan acknowledged that the case was “unique and remarkable,” but asserted that “once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique, and extraordinary than the other 32 cases in this courthouse.”

If that’s the case, it is a severe indictment of the New York court system. Merchan permitted a long-dormant misdemeanor to be revived, enabling Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to pursue declined federal charges.

He allowed a jury to convict Trump without any consensus, let alone unanimity, regarding the events at hand.

Merchan decided that the jury was not required to agree on the reasoning behind Trump’s alleged offense in labeling settlement costs as legal expenses.

Neither the defendant nor the public will ever know what the jury ultimately concluded in its verdict.

I previously described this case as a legal Frankenstein: “It is the ultimate gravedigger charge, where Bragg unearthed a case from 2016 and, through a series of novel steps, is attempting to resurrect it . . . Bragg is combining elements from both state and federal law.”

Even liberal legal analysts have criticized the case, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recently labeling it total “bulls–t.”

Now, Merchan appeared eager to convey that this Frankenstein case was just like any other entity of the court. It was irrelevant that it was cobbled together from defunct cases and jolted into existence through legal maneuvering.

Merchan understands there is a strong possibility this abomination will ultimately fail on appeal, and he was justifying his own actions.

However, the verdict is likely to have a longer-lasting impact than Trump’s verdict. It stands as a judgment not only against Merchan but also against the New York legal system, which allowed itself to be weaponized against political adversaries.

Trump is now able to appeal the entire case. Previous appeals within the New York court system fell short, and optimism for redemption is low.

Nonetheless, Trump may eventually break free from the confines of the New York legal system to seek jurists willing to rise above the turmoil and approach this case with reason.

Merchan’s creation will now journey to the Supreme Court. Beyond New York, this grotesque spectacle is likely to be regarded as more chilling than captivating.

Lawfare is that creature. It poses a threat to all of us, even those who despise Trump and his supporters. Once unleashed, it instills fear in the public, undermining trust in the principles of impartial and fair justice.

This apprehension extends to businesses perceiving this case, alongside the equally ludicrous civil case filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James, as generating a perilous and even lawless atmosphere. Many express, “but for the grace of God go I” in a system that permits selective prosecution.

Numerous individuals will bear blame as the creators of this creature, but few will avoid that blame, including Merchan himself.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”