Justice Juan Merchan Rejects Trump’s Dismissal Motion in New York Criminal Case
On Sunday, Justice Juan Merchan decisively rejected Donald Trump’s motion aimed at dismissing his New York criminal convictions, which was based on claims of presidential immunity. This ruling is significant because it illustrates how the Supreme Court’s conservative faction left a narrow opening for prosecution to proceed. The trial judge utilized this opportunity effectively, ensuring that the legal process continues without interruption, highlighting the ongoing legal challenges facing Trump.
The motion filed was laden with the typical hyperbolic rhetoric and personal attacks characteristic of attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, who will soon take on influential roles within the Justice Department. Their arguments lacked substantive legal grounding and instead focused on emotional appeals, which may have weakened their position significantly.
In their fervent defense, they claimed, “No President of the United States has ever been treated as unfairly and unlawfully as District Attorney Bragg has acted towards President Trump in connection with the biased investigation, extraordinarily delayed charging decision, and baseless prosecution that give rise to this motion.” Such statements seem to reflect a defensive posture rather than a robust legal strategy, undermining their credibility in the eyes of the court.
Ultimately, their objections centered around testimonies from Trump’s former White House aides, Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout, as well as the introduction of a federally mandated financial disclosure and various tweets made during his presidency. They argued that these elements contradict the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. US, which stipulates that evidence of official acts must be excluded to allow presidents to perform their duties without the fear of legal repercussions. However, their failure to raise these objections during the trial suggests a lack of foresight regarding the Supreme Court’s potential response.
Despite the aggressive tone of their arguments, Blanche and Bove showcased creativity in their reasoning for why their late objections should be considered valid. They posited that Trump v. US necessitated a special hearing on immunity claims, arguing that the absence of such a hearing constituted a procedural error that did not require prior objections to be preserved. They also suggested that they were cautious in their objections to avoid irritating the court, urging Justice Merchan to accept their late arguments as though they had been presented in a timely manner. Their assertion that presidential immunity acts as a superpower that supersedes all other legal standards reflects a novel interpretation of legal principles.
Justice Merchan, however, was not swayed by these arguments. He pointed out that “the Trump Court” had clearly delineated that it was not invalidating all prosecutions of former presidents but instead establishing guidelines for distinguishing between official and unofficial conduct. He quoted Chief Justice Roberts, who emphasized that the ruling was narrowly tailored and did not extend beyond the specific circumstances of the case.
In attempting to assuage the concerns expressed by the dissent, Chief Justice Roberts succinctly clarified the majority’s holding. “As for the dissent, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today – conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity;” the Trump Court expressly indicating that its holding is no broader than that.
Consequently, Justice Merchan accepted the Supreme Court’s clarification, ruling that the evidence concerning the preserved claims pertains exclusively to unofficial conduct, thus lacking any immunity protections. He dismissed the argument regarding procedural error, referencing a prior ruling by US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who determined that attempting to conceal a hush money payment through fraudulent invoices was not an official act. This led Justice Merchan to conclude that if falsifying records to obscure payments is an unofficial act, then the communications that facilitated that cover-up must also be regarded as unofficial.
The court further remarked that even if the evidence presented at trial were deemed official, its introduction would not infringe upon the authority and functions of the Executive Branch, thus reinforcing the integrity of the judicial process.
In summation, even if the court’s previous rulings were flawed, the overwhelming evidence against Trump rendered any potential errors inconsequential, as they would not have influenced the outcome of the case.
As things stand, there is still an outstanding Motion to Dismiss Based on Various Previously Rejected Theories and Additionally the Claim of “I WON THE ELECTION.” Furthermore, the defense has raised concerns regarding potential juror misconduct, although specifics remain unclear. The judge described this issue as stemming from a defense letter that “consists entirely of unsworn allegations,” which will likely be addressed in the upcoming days.
The legal proceedings surrounding this case are precariously balanced. However, it remains active and ongoing, indicating that the judicial process will continue to unfold.
Liz Dye resides in Baltimore, where she produces the Law and Chaos substack and podcast.
For more of the latest updates in litigation, regulation, deals, and financial services trends, sign up for Finance Docket, a collaborative effort between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
