Hush money trial: another pause in the proceedings
Judge Merchan has paused the sentencing in the so-called hush money case against Trump, and the pause might be extended:
New York prosecutors told the judge who presided over Donald Trump’s hush money trial on Tuesday that his sentencing should be postponed while the president-elect’s lawyers file further legal arguments asking the case be dismissed.
The proposal from Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office would need to be signed off on by Judge Juan Merchan to become official. Merchan has agreed to previous requests from prosecutors seeking delays.
Prosecutors said they would challenge Trump’s efforts to dismiss the case, but agreed they’re in uncharted territory when it comes to sentencing a president, and acknowledged that his sentencing might need to take place after his term in office.
Yeah, right. They’ve been in uncharted territory the entire time, trying the leading GOP candidate for the presidency before a biased court shortly before the election, on ridiculous charges that are truly “unprecedented” (an overworked word but correct in this instance). The goal was to influence the electorate against him. Perhaps they should be found guilty of malicious prosecution:
A malicious prosecution occurs when a police officer or other government official causes criminal charges to be filed against a person when the official knows probable cause is lacking and the charges are filed because of personal animosity, bias, or some other reason outside the interests of justice. In such cases, the victim’s Fourteenth Amendment “right to liberty” has been violated.
It’s a very hard charge to prove, and it’s a tort rather than a criminal charge. I have no idea whether it would apply to a case like this – perhaps prosecutors are immune? – but something should apply, the offense is so egregious.
Also – why are the prosecutors not just dropping the case? Are they arguing amongst themselves as to what to do? Trying to figure out how he could have a prison White House? Or just embarrassed at this point? Do they ever feel that emotion? I doubt it.
Also:
“Given the need to balance competing constitutional interests, consideration must be given to various non-dismissal options that may address any concerns raised by the pendency of a post-trial criminal proceeding during the presidency, such as deferral of all remaining criminal proceedings until after the end of Defendant’s upcoming presidential term,” the filing says.
The other thing is – unless I’m mistaken, the case can’t be appealed on the merits until they sentence Trump, although there are some procedural grounds for appeal based on the fact that the case wasn’t held in a federal court. So Merchan and the prosecutors may be leaving it dangling because they know they’d lose an appeal with such a terrible case. I’m not sure whether or not my legal reasoning is correct there, but here’s more on the legal issues.
Also, it seems to me that a pause of this nature would violate aspects of a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. Has sentencing ever been delayed for four years, when the trial is otherwise complete?
It’s a little puzzling that they would do this. IANAL… or any kind of legal expert for that matter, so I can’t comment much on the legal aspects. But what are they trying to achieve here? Won’t the most likely outcome be a sentencing in February of 2029 followed by an immediate appeal which Trump would almost certainly win? What does that get them?
Is it like the old asterisk in the baseball record books denoting an “anomaly” in the record? They’re hoping to “*” POTUS Trump’s second term with “convicted felon.”
I think it’s Neo commenter “Mrs. Whatsit” who has posted here that technically Trump is not a “convicted felon” until sentence is pronounced. She is experienced in NY law. With sentencing now indefinitely postponed, it may be that this whole charade recedes into the ether.
I don’t give a damn about the legal horse shit. The purpose of the trial was to prevent Trump from being elected. Everyone involved on their side including THE JURY should prosecuted for insurrection. The MF’ers tried to deny us the consent of the governed. The message must be sent loud and clear. Same with the Carrol case and the Georgia case and the Florida case.
“I think it’s Neo commenter “Mrs. Whatsit” who has posted here that technically Trump is not a “convicted felon” until sentence is pronounced”
I have heard the same from a couple of different NY lawyers.
“Trump is not a “convicted felon” until sentence is pronounced. ”
I’ll reference om from the other thread again: “The left honest care if they’re wrong.” What’s to stop them from saying it even if it has no legal weight?
I mean, shoot, they called him Hitler right up until Joe & Mika went & did obeisance.
I’ve had cases with long-delayed sentencing hearings and they occur for several reasons. Most frequently would be because the defendant is physically or mentally unable to participate, followed by delays due to defendant waiting to cooperate as a witness in other cases—we don’t give him the benefit of the plea-bargain sentence until he makes good on his agreement to testify. And sometimes the defense wants an extended period before sentencing because they have lengthy post-verdict motions they want to file and litigate.
But defendants do have a due process right to an expeditious sentencing if they want to press forward.
Maybe the new DOJ can discover reasons to doubt the judge, and swoop in one fine, sunny morning, say, at pre-dawn – to collect his phone and laptop – and that of his daughter’s too. Maybe they can get a FISA judge to help them with the groundwork up front. Maybe they can start salting rumors to Fox News on progress of the investigation, the various highly suspicious things they are discovering….. and so on. Maybe the IRS might discover reasons for a cavity search of all those records in that ‘charitable’ Anti-Trump political organization his daughter runs, maybe make a few requests for documentation – no more than 10,000 or so. These are the new rules – right?
@ Aggie > “These are the new rules – right?”
As long as the actions are in accord with current statutes, I’m fine with investigations.
James Kunstler ended a recent post with a differentiation of law and lawfare, the latter being what the Democrats are mostly engaged in.
https://jameshowardkunstler.substack.com/p/the-great-splainin-cometh
Of course, the Democrats will label any properly conducted legal investigation as lawfare, because the only thing they can do about it is lie.
This recent remark by om could be a banner headline to every post about something the Democrats did since… well, forever, really.
“The left doesn’t care if they are wrong.”
Neo said, “So Merchan and the prosecutors may be leaving it dangling because they know they’d lose an appeal with such a terrible case.”
I think this may be exactly what’s happening. I think Merchan and Bragg have always known they’d lose on appeal, but were gambling that the “convicted felon” label, added to the rest of the lawfare, would be enough to keep Trump from getting elected. Once he lost, let him appeal — who would care if he was ultimately vindicated? Of course, this strategy backfired, and the blatant injustice of the NY criminal and civil trials helped drive the national shift to the right that propelled Trump to victory. Now, Merchan and Bragg have to think about their legacies and political futures.
They have to be worried about letting an appeals court get its hands on Merchan’s rulings. New York precedent is not the least bit ambivalent about, for instance, the absolute nature of a defendant’s right to be specifically advised by indictment of the charges against him before trial, or the equally absolute right to a unanimous jury verdict. Appellate courts have to write out the reasons for their decisions. I just can’t imagine how even the most Dem-sympathetic appellate court on earth could come up with a plausible explanation for affirming Merchan’s rulings that allowed Bragg not to advise Trump of which felony he supposedly intended to commit that converted time-barred misdemeanor charges into felonies, or allowed the jury to render a non-unanimous verdict on that question. Even a one-word “AFFIRMED” decision would establish a terrible precedent.
I wonder if Merchan is waiting to see how the AD First decides the civil fraud case. The panel expressed a lot of skepticism in the September oral arguments, not just about the size and validity of the judgment but also about the reasons for the prosecution. That decision should be handed down sometime soon. What the appellate court decides and the tone it takes may send smoke signals to Merchan on how it may view the criminal appeal.
I, personally, would rather see an appeal, because that’s the only way to completely clear Trump’s name. A post-verdict dismissal won’t do that, especially if it’s based on presidential immunity. That could just make it look as if Trump got away with something. But, at this point, that may be the best outcome Bragg and Merchan have left to hope for. I don’t see how a criminal sentencing and appeal can proceed against a sitting President — and by the time four years have passed, will anyone care, even Trump?
Here is the FOX NEWS take on the case.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-bragg-merchans-vindictive-lawfare-strategy-against-trump-failed-can-go-until-2029
I’m going to be contrarian. By doing this I think the Left is making a huge mistake, this will remind people what the Left has done.
Is Mike Nifong working for Bragg?
Alan Dershowitz Outlines How Trump Lawyers Should Handle Bragg’s Plan To ‘Freeze’ Business Docs Case
Thank you, Karmi, for the Dershowitz link. I hope Trump’s lawyers do something like this.