Judge Schedules Trump’s Sentencing for January 10, Indicates Jail Time Unlikely
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan dismissed President-elect Donald Trump’s request to quash the case against him.
Justice Juan Merchan of the New York Supreme Court has turned down President-Elect Donald Trump’s efforts to dismiss the business records case and has scheduled sentencing for January 10.
In his ruling on January 3, Merchan dismissed claims made by Trump’s legal team regarding the Presidential Transition Act, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and presidential immunity, stating that none warranted the annulment of the jury’s verdicts or the dismissal of the indictment.
Merchan indicated he was not inclined to impose a prison sentence on the president-elect, noting concerns about presidential immunity, and suggested that “a sentence of unconditional discharge seems to be the most feasible approach to ensure finality and allow the Defendant to pursue his appellate options.”
In May, a jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts, leading to the possibility of imprisonment. Experts previously informed The Epoch Times that the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution could prevent Trump from serving time.
In response to Merchan’s ruling, Trump’s Communications Director, Steven Cheung, called it “a clear violation of the Supreme Court’s Immunity ruling and established jurisprudence.”
Cheung asserted that Trump’s transition should be “unimpeded by the remnants of this or any other Witch Hunts.”
“There should be no sentencing, and President Trump will continue to fight against these falsehoods until they are laid to rest,” he stated.
Merchan’s ruling arrived just weeks before the president’s inauguration on January 20 and raised issues about the protections for president-elects. He acknowledged that Trump presented a unique argument concerning presidential immunity for president-elects, asserting that established precedents did not necessitate the case’s dismissal.
He noted that the president-elect could “exercise his right to appear virtually for this proceeding, if he wishes,” given “the mental and physical demands during this transition period.”
In December, Merchan rejected Trump’s various claims related to immunity concerning the evidence presented during the trial.
He stated that Trump either delayed or failed to maintain objections to the evidence and clarified that the information linked to both preserved and unpreserved claims did not receive protection under the doctrine of presidential immunity.
“This Court … concludes that the evidence pertaining to the preserved claims relates entirely to unofficial conduct and thus receives no immunity protections,” Merchan articulated in his opinion.
“Regarding the claims that were unpreserved, this Court finds alternatively that merit-wise, they are also denied as they relate solely to unofficial conduct deserving of no immunity protections.”
In his January 3 ruling, Merchan contended that dismissing the indictment and vacating the verdict would “undermine the Rule of Law in immeasurable ways.”
He characterized the alleged offenses as “premeditated and repetitive deception by the leader of the free world.”
Trump has denied any wrongdoing in this case.
Merchan also dismissed the notion that Trump’s character should influence the rejection of the jury’s verdict, claiming the president-elect displayed contempt for the judicial system.
“The Defendant’s contempt for the Third Branch of government, whether state or federal, in New York or elsewhere, is well documented,” he emphasized.
The president-elect labeled the case as illegitimate and expressed that Merchan’s opinion “contravenes our Constitution and, if permitted to stand, would spell the end of the presidency as we recognize it.”
Merchan’s ruling refuted the argument that the case would impose a stigma hindering Trump’s presidential responsibilities. “Any potential public stigma linked to criminal prosecution has long dissipated,” he stated.
Trump has been appealing a district court’s refusal to transfer the case to federal court in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Janice Hisle contributed to this report.