When the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, accused President Donald Trump of felonies in a so-called hush money case, the judge, Juan Merchan, censored Trump's statements about the case. He allowed prosecutors to leave a vague "secondary" crime claim in place without any specifics. He delivered pro-prosecution jury instructions which seemed to allow a verdict without unanimity.
And all the while, Merchan's daughter was making money advising Democrats on issues that could include her father's courtroom rulings.
Now the president is appealing, with his lawyers explaining the Supreme Court's immunity ruling means prosecutors should not have been allowed to say some of the things they claimed about Trump.
The Washington Examiner reports Trump's legal team confirmed the Supreme Court's decision on immunity "means prosecutors should have been barred from using evidence connected to Trump's 'official' acts as president in the case against him."
"Trump also urged a federal appeals court to transfer the New York state criminal case to federal court. It's similar to the president's move over the summer, when his lawyers urged a federal appeals panel to move the hush money case. Such a change could open up the pathway for the Supreme Court to hear the case, which could be friendlier territory for the president, as the court has ruled largely in his favor on presidential immunity," the report explained.
It was in 2024 that a jury in leftist-majority Manhattan said he was guilty of falsifying records dealing with a payment to onetime porn star Stormy Daniels, 34 counts total.
The errors made in the trial court, however, mean the conviction should be scrapped, the report said.
Merchan, a donor to a Democrat cause, in fact, barred some of Trump's defense evidence, including statements that appeared to exonerate him from Daniels herself, censored Trump's speech, delivered pro-prosecution instructions, and more.
"One of the mistakes some legal critics believe was committed during the trial involved allegations that the New York district attorney's office, led by Alvin Bragg, never committed itself to what the second crime was. Rather, his office theorized that the crime could have been a New York tax violation, a federal campaign finance violation, or a New York election law violation," the report explained.
The law violation brought by Bragg is a two-part crime, meaning it depends on violation of another statute, and the prosecution never clarified that. That means some members of the jury may have assumed one law, or another, leaving their verdict not unanimous.
"The court permitted the jury to convict if some jurors believed only that President Trump had conspired to violate FECA, while others believed only that he had conspired to help others commit tax fraud, and still others believed only that he had conspired to help others make false statements to a bank," appeals court filings said. "Due process and Section 17-152 do not permit a conviction based on such a haphazard 'combination of jury findings.'"
At sentencing, Merchan spent seven minutes complaining that he was limited in his sentencing, then gave Trump an unconditional discharge, allowing for no fines, jail or probation while continuing the felony convictions.
Merchan, whose daughter is a consultant who was making money off of her father's multiple rulings against Trump, claimed "extraordinary" legal protections handed to the president of the United States required him to hand down a minor sentence that Trump would allegedly not have received without being reelected.
"While one can argue that the trial itself was in many respects somewhat ordinary, the same cannot be said about the circumstances surrounding this sentencing and that is because of the office [Trump] once occupied, and which you will soon occupy again," Merchan told the president-elect. "To be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to the office of the president of the United States that are extraordinary, not the occupant of the office. The legal protections, especially within the context of a criminal prosecution, afforded to the office of the president have been laid out by our founders, the Constitution and most recently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in the matter of Trump versus the United States, which was decided on July 1, 2024.
"As with every other defendant in your position, it is my obligation to consider any and all aggravating and mitigating factors to inform my decision ... The considerable, indeed, extraordinary legal protections afforded by the office of the chief executive, is a factor that overrides all others," the judge continued.
Merchan, in extraordinary fashion, allowed a wide range of inflammatory testimony to come into his courtroom against Trump. The substance of the complaint was that Bragg claimed a $130,000 non-disclosure agreement with former porn actress Stormy Daniels, paid through Trump's then-lawyer as legal fees, were not legal fees. Bragg claimed that calling legal fees legal fees was "falsifying business records."
A long list of legal experts charged that the case never should have been created by Bragg. Merchan, in fact, inexplicably told the jurors their verdict didn't have to be unanimous.
The payment was for Daniels' silence about an alleged affair, which Trump has confirmed never happened. Trump said the payments were part of a standard legal retainer and denied knowing of any unlawful scheme.
The "offenses" actually were misdemeanors until Bragg theorized they were part of the furtherance of another, unidentified, crime, and that made them felonies. Experts called Bragg's machinations "legally creative."