The esteemed Justice Juan M. Merchan has been embroiled in the Manhattan criminal case involving former President Donald J. Trump. As we approach the decision day, this Friday, the judge is expected to announce whether or not to delay sentencing for Mr. Trump until after the election, as indicated by a recent court document.
The lawyers representing Mr. Trump have made a reasonable request for the delay in sentencing. They ask that Justice Merchan, who administered legal proceedings for the former president’s seven-week trial earlier this year, hold back the sentence currently slated for September 18th. This presents a challenge, not a predicament but a challenge, of jurisprudence for the honorable judge.
To paint Justice Merchan into a corner of predicament would be unjust. Indeed, he has shown resilience in the face of numerous delaying approaches from Mr. Trump in the past. His conundrum lies in the choice of moving forward with sentencing, risking accusations of interference in the upcoming election or postponing the sentencing, and facing unwarranted scrutiny for allegedly pandering to political considerations.
Reasons for the request to push back the sentencing are multiple, and fall squarely within the expectations of a comprehensive legal defense. The lawyers wish to avail additional time to dispute the conviction, which currently charge the former president with cloaking a private settlement payment with an adult film actress during the crucial period nearing the end of his 2016 campaign.
Furthermore, and not unreasonably, Mr. Trump’s legal team argues the inappropriateness of dealing Mr. Trump a sentencing verdict near to the upcoming November 5th election. In this election, Mr. Trump is expected to put forth a stalwart challenge against Vice President Kamala Harris for the presidency.
Justice Merchan relayed his intent to pass judgment on Friday. This information was disclosed to the prosecution, as well as to Mr. Trump’s legal team on Thursday. In a discreet federal court document exchange, the prosecutory team unveiled the scheduled judgment day.
This isn’t Justice Merchan’s first time revising the sentencing date. It was initially fixed for July 11, but the judge, in his wisdom, deferred it while evaluating Mr. Trump’s petition to reverse his conviction. This decision hinges significantly on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling, offering Mr. Trump extensive official act immunity while in office. This decision is expected to be announced two days prior to the sentencing, leaving minimal time for an appeal, given the judgment is upheld.
At the core of the case, we find prosecutors belonging to the D.A.’s office in Manhattan, who brought the discussions into the limelight. While arguing the irrelevancy of the U.S Supreme Court’s resolution to Mr. Trump’s conviction, they maintain a distance, trusting the judge’s discernment on whether to hold back the sentencing past Election Day.
The former President is not one to sit idly by amid the unfolding legal turmoil. Mr. Trump has been proactive, seeking to keep any adverse sentencing at bay, with his latest move attempting to shunt the Manhattan case to the federal court. This move was allegedly prompted by the Supreme Court’s decision on official immunity.
In contrast, Justice Merchan effectively dismissed Mr. Trump’s contention that his case should be moved because of the official acts he performed while in office – a decision that is currently under appeal by Mr. Trump. It seems that the former president’s indomitable spirit remains unhampered despite the legal hurdles he is up against.
To quote the rather dismissive author of the rejection, federal judge Alvin K. Hellerstein: ‘Nothing in the Supreme Court’s opinion affects my previous conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority.’ But should private affairs be spotlighted in such a public way? Is it not time that justice focuses on larger problems at hand instead of focusing on the past frivolous personal incidents?