Merchans ‘own opinion’ could mean Trumps sentencing is ‘no sure thing’: ‘legal expert

After Donald Trump’s legal team asked Judge Juan Merchan to delay the president-elect’ sentencing in his New York hush money case on Monday, the presiding judge swiftly shut down the MAGA team’s request. In an op-ed published by MSNBC, legal correspondent and former litigator, Lisa Rubin, explained why she’s “expecting a flurry of activity in New York appeals courts this week — and that none of it will end in a sentencing.”Rubin suggests that Trump’s sentencing hearing on January 10 “is no sure thing” because of Merchan’s “own opinion”, as well as the president-elect’s “appellate maneuvers”.READ MORE: Why a delay on Trump sentencing would cause ‘irreparable harm’: defense lawyerDespite the fact the New York judge already said that “his inclination is ‘to not impose any sentence of incarceration,'” Rubin notes, he also knows that “a sentence is necessary in virtually all circumstances both to preserve a jury verdict and to enable a defendant to exercise his appellate rights.”Furthermore, Rubin points out: MSNBC legal analyst Kristy Greenberg, a former Manhattan-based federal prosecutor of many years, observed that sections of the opinion themselves sound like what judges say at sentencing proceedings. For example, rejecting Trump’s argument that the crimes for which he was convicted are comparably not so grave, Merchan castigated Trump for the ‘premeditated and continuous deception’ that underlie his conviction on 34 counts of falsification of business records with the intent to defraud, including ‘an intent to commit or conceal a conspiracy to promote a presidential election by unlawful means.’The legal analyst also notes:Throughout the opinion, Merchan also bemoans Trump’s lack of remorse, noting his ‘unrelenting and unsubstantiated attacks against the integrity and legitimacy of this process, individual prosecutors, witnesses and the Rule of Law’ and observing that Trump has, on multiple occasions, ‘pursu[ed] a claim with increasing indignation while simultaneously failing to acknowledge that this Court’s rulings on those subjects have been repeatedly upheld.’Do those words read as if Merchan understood, when calibrating his opinion, that because of Trump’s expected appellate efforts, this could be his last public statement in Trump’s case? They sure do.Rubin added that “focusing on who ultimately wins or loses ignores the bigger issue here,” which is “delay.”READ MORE: ‘Dangerous rhetoric’: Legal expert flags ‘a twist’ in judge’s Trump sentencing filingShe concluded, “All Trump needs is one or more judges of the Appellate Division, First Department — the applicable first-tier appeals court — to press pause on the sentencing until 12:01 p.m. on Jan. 20, when Trump becomes president once more. That’s also when, by virtue of taking the oath and for the duration of his term in office, Trump will again have immunity from any and all prosecutions and related proceedings.”Rubin’s full report is available here.

Read Full Article