Post New

Nope, nope.

He postpones sentencing till after the election.

Probably the right thing to do though it may mean there is no real sentencing if Trump wins.

Liberal judges out to get Trump. Isn't that right you MAGAS?

He postpones sentencing till after the election.

Huh? What?

Dope1 said ”If Hunter's last name was "Trump" he'd already be in jail …………”

Isn’t Donny’s last Trump?

Are you saying that what Dope1 said is not entirely accurate? NO WAY! Shame on you, ges.

</trolling> 😇

Judge Merchan's decision to defer sentencing in Trump's New York State criminal conviction is highly problematic, for two reasons. His decision stated:

----------------
The public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from distraction or distortion. The members of this jury served diligently on this case, and their verdict must be respected and addressed in a manner that is not diluted by the enormity of the upcoming presidential election. Likewise, if one is necessary, the Defendant has the right to a sentencing hearing that respects and protects his constitutional rights.
----------------

The jury already fulfilled its obligation well outside any reasonable "window" that should be granted around a public figure engaged in a political campaign being subjected to criminal justice for actions years before the current campaign. The judge is responsible for extending their decision about guilt or innocence by factoring in potential penalties and making that final decision, which is the judge's decision alone to make. This particular instance was complicated by a Supreme Court meddling in issues about federal law and evidence about communications of a sitting President about "Presidential acts" which in theory have NOTHING to do with the core crimes adjudicated in this New York State case that occured BEFORE the defendant became President.

In short, it would appear the jury did the hard work. The remaining work may be awkward, it may be unpleasant, but it would appear to have less opinion involved in the final outcome that could be distorted by any perceived political pressure or concerns about an election. As long as external politics don't affect the JUDGE'S sentencing decision, it isn't the JUDGE'S job to worry if his sentencing decision affects external politics. This smacks of James Comey all over again... Someone trying to outguess multiple layers of caroms arising from his job and altering the timing of his actions to somehow "optimize" the "fairness" of a larger universe of actors and behaviors he can neither control or predict.

More importantly, Merchan's rationale for defering the sentencing decision seems to directly conflict with the approach publicly stated by US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkin in a hearing on September 5, 2024 in which she rejected a request from Trump's counsel to postpone formal presetation of arguments regarding dismissal until after the election. The attorney for Trump objected to any schedule for conducting that hearing earlier than the election saying the prosecution could expose new information at a "sensitive time" for the defendant. Chutkan rejected the argument, stating such concerns were "not relevant" and "I am definitely not getting drawn into an election dispute." In essence, she was stating this entire criminal process was STARTED months ago and, once initiated, her obligation was to ensure it proceeded as quickly as possible while preserving all due rights of the defendent.

Having a federal and state court issue seemingly conflicting opinions on back to back days regarding the scheduling of legal actions they must perform involving the criminal prosecution and sentencing of a citizen of the United States simply because that citizen is a public figure not only highlights the fact the defendent IS getting special treatment in violation of the courts' obligation to dispense equal justice, those conflicting opinions serve as additional excuses for the defendent to file more motions and objections about disparate treatment and further delay justice by doing so.


WTH

Yet another reason to defeat Trump at the polls in November.

Judge Merchan's decision to defer sentencing in Trump's New York State criminal conviction is highly problematic, for two reasons.

As a non-lawyer, I see things a bit simpler.

Merchan has this USSC case messing with his case. The USSC gave Presidents some rights that may not have been taken into account during the trial. So it makes sense to me that he needs to pause the sentencing to consider those rights. So the first question he needs to consider is how these new rights affect the case in his courtroom.

I think it might be completely in Merchan's discretion to use the established record in the case to decide if any of these new rights affect the case. After all, most (if not all) of the acts happened before Trump was President. There's certainly no immunity for any pre-Presidency acts. It may be the evidence that is causing problems. The USSC also gave some immunity to Presidential conversations. To the extent any conversations between Trump and others happened after he became President, those conversations might not be admissible in trial. I don't know how many pieces of evidence might fit this description. If it's very few and they were not all that consequential, it should be perfectly fine for Merchan to rule that any inadmissible evidence was immaterial to the case.

However, it's probably safer for Merchan to ask for briefings and argument on the issue. Let the prosecution and defense make their arguments on paper, and perhaps have a hearing and oral arguments as well. Then make a decision based on that.

My understanding is that the USSC decision instructed trial court judges to make decisions on what is immune and what isn't, what is admissible and what isn't. So Merchan needs to either issue a ruling based on the existing record, or create additional record (briefings and arguments) before making his decision. So I fully understand the need to delay sentencing until after this decision.

But he already received briefings (and oral arguments?) on this issue several weeks ago and had scheduled a date on which he would announce his decision. That date was Sept 16. This is where Merchan is making a mistake. Unless I've missed something, there is no reason to postpone this decision. He's got all of the info he needs to make his ruling. He should make it, and make it as scheduled.

Of course, Trump will appeal that decision, which makes the previously announced sentencing date irrelevant. But the new sentencing date is also irrelevant -- because it is still too close to the date for the decision on immunity. A decision which everyone knows will be appealed. A decision which he has all the necessary information to make. So make your decision, Juan. Being a judge is sometimes a tough job. This is one of those. Justice needs to continue moving forward whether there is an election or not. So keep it moving.

The ball is, quite literally, in your court.

--Peter

My understanding is that the USSC decision instructed trial court judges to make decisions on what is immune and what isn't, what is admissible and what isn't. So Merchan needs to either issue a ruling based on the existing record, or create additional record (briefings and arguments) before making his decision. So I fully understand the need to delay sentencing until after this decision. = Pete

-------------

The your understanding is wrong. Merchan gave us his reason for his decision to delay and it was not what you said above.

anyone have odds of additional vexatious litigation with no repercussions? 100% ?

if SCOTUS allows
- incompetence with impunity, ala cannon
- fear of decision-making w/out being backed by an election result (maybe merchan and others)

then the end result is the same.
fear may actually be worse, as it allows the conservatives to get what they want w/out over-reach and cause sufficient outrage to force a change.

Merchan gave us his reason for his decision to delay

You mean this one?:

“Adjourning decision on the motion and sentencing, if such is required, should dispel any suggestion that the Court will have issued any decision or imposed sentence either to give an advantage to, or to create a disadvantage for, any political party and or any candidate for any office,” Merchan wrote.

Basically, he's being a chicken shit.

Trump has been found guilty. That SHOULD have an affect on his candidacy. Likewise, if he is immune or there was evidence presented that should not have been presented, that information SHOULD affect his candidacy.

What he's doing is a disservice to the public, no matter what his decision - whether for or against Trump. We're left in a limbo where the facts and legal decisions are unknown when they easily could be known.

There is simply no reason for Merchan to avoid making the decision, especially when he has all the information he's asked for in order to make the decision, and he's had plenty of time to study the information and arguments.

Wouldn't Trump really want to know the decision if it were in favor of immunity or at least a retrial without the inadmissible evidence? Either one would remove the guilty verdict and, at worst, cause a retrial. If he's so convinced of his immunity, get the judge to move it along and announce his decision.

And even if the decision is against Trump, he can get his appeal filed and moving, and it will give him one more thing to whine about on the campaign trail, bringing in more campaign donations.

We've been down this road before. Eight years ago, Comey thought he could thread the needle and re-open an investigation on the thinnest of evidence while trying to sound neutral. That failed spectacularly. Just a few days ago, Judge Chutkan had the balls to do the right thing. She chose to keep her case moving forward, saying that she was going to pay no attention to the election. She's got a trial to conduct, and she's going to conduct it like she would for any other defendant. Some random drug pusher would get the same treatment - she wouldn't let him delay the trial so he could go to a job interview. (Well, maybe for a day, but not for multiple weeks.)

--Peter

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

ptheland: Wouldn't Trump really want to know the decision if it were in favor of immunity or at least a retrial without the inadmissible evidence? Either one would remove the guilty verdict and, at worst, cause a retrial. If he's so convinced of his immunity, get the judge to move it along and announce his decision.

With his multiple indictments in multiple jurisdictions, it's a little difficult to keep all the charges straight but don't most or all of the charges in his business fraud case pre- date his presidency? How would they be subject to presidential immunity? And they certainly all pertain to the Trump Organization; again, no presidential immunity.

In addition, he has already been found guilty and he is in the sentencing phase of the trial. Again, nothing here relates to presidential immunity.

Justice Merchan didn't allude to presidential immunity claims but simple referenced the “unique time frame this matter currently finds itself in.”

Whether this helps or hurts DonOld is debatable but it is certainly preferential treatment.

One theory is that such risks are actually magnified because Merchan actually intends on handing down a sentence involving some form of "confinement."

Ok. But before that can happen, Merchan has to deal with the USSC immunity ruling. I expect him to find that either it doesn’t apply at all, or that the potential inadmissible evidence is so minor that it would not change the verdict.

Either way, Trump will immediately appeal the ruling, which would put a stay on the sentencing. The appeal won’t be heard until long after the election, so delaying the sentencing date is immaterial.

What chaps my hide is delaying his ruling on immunity, not the sentencing.

And yes, that ruling is more than enough to raise the risks of threats to the Judge, his court staff, and all of their families. So appropriate precautions need to be in place. On the other hand, I would hope they’ve been in place for a while already. And if the FBI and/or NY isn’t already prosecuting the threat makers, shame on them.

Alas, these threats are much like any defensive position. You can stop dozens or thousands of incoming attacks, but it only takes one to get through and cause irreparable damage.

—Peter

but don't most or all of the charges in his business fraud case pre- date his presidency?

It is hard to keep up, but yes, much of the activity pre-dates his presidency. Not all, though. I think some of the payments (and therefore the fraudulent recording of them), happened after he was sworn in. Of course, those are all personal in nature and therefore outside of immunity. But that won’t stop Trump from claiming it is immune and appealing all the way to his friends in the USSC.

There’s also testimony from Hope Hicks (and maybe a couple of others) that might not be admissible. Hicks was a White House employee, so her conversations with Trump might not be usable in court. That one has a better chance of working to Trump’s benefit. What I don’t know is how important that testimony is to the overall case. If it means a couple charges need to be dropped, I suspect the DA will let those go. If it’s the whole case, that’s a fight for the DA to take on. (Much like Jack Smith is keeping Pence in his Jan 6 case but dropping all other White House staff.)

—Peter

ptheland: There’s also testimony from Hope Hicks (and maybe a couple of others) that might not be admissible. Hicks was a White House employee, so her conversations with Trump might not be usable in court.

No. Hicks testified on her time at the Trump Organization before she was brought onto his 2016 campaign and also the Access Hollywood tape and the potential impact of news of his raw-dogging a porn star on the 2016 presidential campaign (which led to the hush money payment).

Trump wasn't president.

No immunity.

delays seem to be outperforming expectations bigly if the panel is mostly concerned about deterring future trump crimes.

we all expect future crimes, but that not being in the panel's purview is a conclusion i expect they have already reached and now seems performance art.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/26/trump-civ...

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.