NEW YORK — The judge in charge of Donald Trump’s hush money case faced several critical and unprecedented legal questions before announcing on Friday that the president-elect would be sentenced later this month for the offense of falsifying business records.
In an 18-page ruling, Judge Juan Merchan explained his rationale behind the decision. One of the most significant conclusions he reached was that Trump’s conviction would not be dismissed simply due to his election to the presidency.
“Indeed, the sanctity of a jury verdict and the deference that must be afforded to it is a fundamental principle in our Nation’s judicial system,” Merchan wrote.
Additionally, the judge indicated he was inclined to impose an “unconditional discharge” sentence, which would mean that Trump would only carry the conviction on his criminal record without further penalties.
Following the judge’s ruling, a spokesperson for Trump stated that the president-elect would persist in contesting the case, labeling it a hoax.
Highlighted in the judge’s decision are several crucial points:
A president-elect does not enjoy immunity from prosecution:
“The Constitution specifies that only a sitting President, upon taking the oath of office, possesses the authority of the Chief Executive. Therefore, a president-elect cannot utilize the protections granted to the individual in that position. Additionally, established legal precedent does not allow for any individual, upon becoming President, to retroactively nullify or vacate previous criminal activities nor does it offer blanket immunity for president-elects.”
Trump’s election victory does not exempt him from sentencing:
“Any argument the Defendant may present suggesting his circumstances have altered due to his Presidential election victory, while convenient, is misleading. From the onset of this case, the Defendant has displayed confidence and even expected to succeed in the 2024 Election — a belief that has turned out to be justified. It was anticipated that he would become the ‘President-elect’ and assume all associated responsibilities during the transition. Consequently, it was reasonable for this Court to assume that his request to delay sentencing until after the election implied agreement that he would face repercussions during the period between the election and the inauguration.”
The verdict should not be dismissed ‘for the sake of justice’:
“In this instance, twelve jurors unanimously found the Defendant guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records with the intent to defraud, which included intentions to commit or hide a conspiracy aimed at furthering a presidential election unlawfully. The calculated and ongoing deception by the leader of the free world forms the essence of this offense. To overturn this verdict based on the notion that the charges lack sufficient seriousness given the position the Defendant once held, and is on the verge of assuming again, would result in an unjust outcome and severely damage the public’s trust in the Rule of Law.”
Trump has exhibited ‘persistent and unfounded attacks’ on the judicial system:
“The Defendant’s contempt for the judicial branch of government at both state and federal levels is publicly documented. He has openly expressed his disdain for judges, juries, grand jurors, and the justice process overall through social media and other platforms.”
The jury’s decision must be honored:
“This Court acknowledges the vital need to evaluate and weigh the seemingly opposing factors it faces: ensuring that the Executive Branch operates fully without being hindered by ongoing criminal cases, upholding the Supreme Court’s rulings and the public’s expectation that justice applies equally to all, and the necessity of safeguarding the integrity of the jury’s verdict. At this stage in the proceedings, this Court is not convinced that the first factor outweighs the others, either individually or collectively.”
“To dismiss the indictment and invalidate the jury’s decision would not uphold the concerns raised by the Supreme Court in its few cases discussing Presidential immunity nor would it serve the Rule of Law. Rather, such an action would erode the Rule of Law in significant ways.”
Trump is unlikely to face imprisonment:
“While this Court is not permitted to make any determinations regarding sentencing until it hears from all relevant parties, it is appropriate at this point to express the Court’s inclination not to impose any prison sentence—though such a sentence is legally permissible. The prosecution has indicated they no longer view incarceration as a feasible recommendation. Thus, in balancing the factors already mentioned alongside concerns regarding Presidential immunity, a sentence of unconditional discharge seems to be the most reasonable resolution to ensure finality while allowing the Defendant to explore his appellate options.”
