No. of Recommendations: 11
I watched a different analysis just now that put a different spin on Merchan's decision that makes sense although I don't agree with it.
The alternate pespective is that this scheduling decision involved the judge's discretion with input from BOTH defense counsel and the prosecutor. Normally, if the defense files a motion to postpone a sentencing, a prosecutor would normally push back and cite their rationale for doing so and the judge would make the decision. In this case, the defense posed its motion to defer and the prosecutor filed no objecting motion. From Merchan's perspective, he basically felt that the prosecution AGREED with the defense's motion to defer. That puts the judge in a much different position.
By all accounts, both the prosecutor's office and the court have been experiencing threats of violence of all levels for themselves and their families. This is already a hard decision for a judge to make absent those security threats. One theory is that such risks are actually magnified because Merchan actually intends on handing down a sentence involving some form of "confinement." That would be an history making event in any circumstance but if the security threats are credible, Merchan has to evaluate the net benefit to the peace and order he's supposed to protect versus the risk of additional violence based on reactions to that sentence. If Merchan has to shoulder ALL of that decision alone after the prosecutor punts their portion of "buy-in" responsibility onto him, he's going to come up with a more conservative timing that minimizes risk to the functions for which he is directly responsible -- his court and his family.
A different way of stating this is that it is easier for Chutkan to be more aggressive in the operation of her case because she KNOWS it won't have a final outcome until well after any election. The biggest outcome her case will generate is the public release of Jack Smith's revised factual inventory of his case which WILL happen per her order prior to the election. However, that still spreads ambiguity out across many parties, essentially dissipating any possible anger that information will trigger.
I see the logic in that. But that logic is still an appalling reflection of where we are as a country.
WTH
