Judge Juan Merchan again declined to recuse himself from Donald Trump’s New York criminal case, rejecting the former president’s third attempt to get rid of the presiding judge in his so-called hush money case.
Refusing to step aside in a decision dated Tuesday, Merchan called the GOP presidential nominee’s arguments “nothing more than a repetition of stale and unsubstantiated claims.” The judge noted that he was reiterating, “for the third time, that which should already be clear – innuendo and mischaracterizations do not a conflict create. Recusal is therefore not necessary, much less required.”
Merchan not only rejected the motion, but also called out Trump’s counsel in the process. While noting that he welcomed zealous advocacy and creative lawyering, he recalled in his ruling that “counsel has been warned repeatedly that such advocacy must not come at the expense of professional responsibility in one’s role as an officer of the court.” The judge added: “Counsel has merely repeated arguments that have already been denied by this and higher courts. Defense Counsel’s reliance, and apparent citation to his own prior affirmation, rife with inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims, is unavailing.”
Trump’s latest recusal attempt, filed by defense lawyers Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, cited the fact of Kamala Harris becoming the Democratic presidential nominee as a reason for the judge to step aside because of his daughter’s political campaign-related work. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office called the defense move “a vexatious and frivolous attempt to relitigate an issue that was twice addressed by this Court in orders that the First Department then refused to disturb,” referring to the New York state appeals court.
“Defendant identifies no new facts or changes in the law that warrant a different outcome,” the prosecution wrote to Merchan ahead of his ruling, pointing out that Trump’s previous motions already argued that Harris was Trump’s political opponent and that Merchan’s daughter would benefit from rulings in this case.
The denial moves Trump one step closer to sentencing. But first, Merchan will need to rule on another Trump motion, to set aside his guilty verdicts in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling granting broad presidential immunity.
If Merchan also rejects that motion, sentencing would proceed on Sept. 18 on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, an “E” felony (the lowest-level New York state felony) that doesn’t mandate incarceration.
Sentencing was supposed to happen in July, but the immunity decision pushed it back, raising the question of whether evidence was improperly introduced at trial that ran afoul of the Supreme Court’s newly concocted presidential immunity rule. Merchan will answer that complex question in the first instance in his ruling due Sept. 16, though the Supreme Court may eventually have the final word in all of Trump’s cases in which he invokes immunity.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for updates and expert analysis on the top legal stories. The newsletter will return to its regular weekly schedule when the Supreme Court’s next term kicks off in October.
