NEW YORK (AP) — The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York dealt with a host of weighty, unprecedented questions before deciding Friday that the president-elect should be sentenced later this month for the crime of falsifying business records.
In an 18-page legal opinion, Judge Juan Merchan laid out his reasoning for the ruling. His most important finding was that Trump’s conviction should not be thrown out simply because he was elected president.
“Indeed, the sanctity of a jury verdict and the deference that must be accorded to it, is a bedrock principle in our Nation’s jurisprudence,” Merchan wrote.
But the judge also signaled that he intended to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge,” which means Trump would not face any punishment beyond having the conviction on his legal record.
Trump’s spokesperson said after Merchan’s ruling that the president-elect would continue to fight against the case, which he called a hoax.
Here are some key excerpts from the judge’s decision:
“The Constitution dictates that only a President, after taking the oath of office, has the authority of the Chief Executive, a President-elect does not. Accordingly, a President-elect is not permitted to avail himself of the protections afforded to the individual occupying that Office. … Binding precedent does not provide that an individual, upon becoming President, can retroactively dismiss or vacate prior criminal acts nor does it grant blanket Presidential-elect immunity.”
“Any claim Defendant may have that circumstances have changed as a result of Defendant’s victory in the Presidential election, while convenient, is disingenuous. Defendant has always pronounced, since the inception of this case, confidence and indeed the expectation that he would prevail in the 2024 Election — confidence that has proven well-founded. That he would become the ‘President-elect’ and be required to assume all the responsibilities that come with the transition were entirely anticipated. Thus, it was fair for this Court to trust that his request to adjourn sentencing until after the election carried with it the implied consent that he would face sentence during the window between the election and the taking of the oath of office.”
“Here, 12 jurors unanimously found Defendant guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records with the intent to defraud, which included an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote a presidential election by unlawful means. It was the premediated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world that is the gravamen of this offense. To vacate this verdict on the grounds that the charges are insufficiently serious given the position Defendant once held, and is about to assume again, would constitute a disproportionate result and cause immeasurable damage to the citizenry’s confidence in the Rule of Law.”
“Defendant’s disdain for the Third Branch of government, whether state or federal, in New York or elsewhere, is a matter of public record. Indeed, Defendant has gone to great lengths to broadcast on social media and other forums his lack of respect for judges, juries, grand juries and the justice system as a whole.”
“This Court recognizes the importance of considering and balancing the seemingly competing factors before it: ensuring that the Executive Branch is free to fully dispense the duties of the President and safeguard the interests of the Nation, unencumbered by pending criminal proceedings; to ensure that the Supreme Court’s ruling and the citizenry’s expectation be honored that all are equal and no one is above the Iaw; and the importance of protecting the sanctity of a jury verdict. This Court is simply not persuaded that the first factor outweighs the others at this stage of the proceeding, either on its own or in conjunction with the other … factors.”
“To dismiss the indictment and set aside the jury verdict would not serve the concerns set forth by the Supreme Court in its handful of cases addressing Presidential immunity nor would it serve the Rule of Law. On the contrary, such decision would undermine the Rule of Law in immeasurable ways.”
“While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation. As such, in balancing the aforementioned considerations in conjunction with the underlying concerns of the Presidential immunity doctrine, a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options.”
