Left: Judge Juan Merchan poses for a picture in his chambers in New York, Thursday, March 14, 2024. Merchan is presiding over Donald Trump’s hush money case in New York (AP Photo/Seth Wenig). Right: FILE – Former President Donald Trump is escorted to a courtroom, April 4, 2023, in New York (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File).
Former President Donald Trump has initiated an appeal in an attempt to overturn his 34 felony convictions related to falsifying business records. He contends once more that the trial judge, who made a minor donation of $35 to Democratic causes in 2020, should have recused himself from the case.
In a comprehensive document spanning nearly 100 pages filed with the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Department, Trump’s legal team from Sullivan & Cromwell, which includes former Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, sharply criticized acting New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Law&Crime has frequently covered Trump’s unsuccessful attempts to compel Merchan’s recusal by citing his daughter’s employment with Democratic organizations and his own political contributions.
Additionally, Trump pursued legal action directly against the judge due to gag orders in the case, although these efforts did not succeed.
These familiar complaints are prominently featured in Trump’s extensive appeal filings.
Trump’s legal representatives argue that Bragg “engineered felony charges” with the aim of influencing the 2024 election based on a “complicated legal theory,” claiming that the prosecution “never should have gone to trial, much less ended in a conviction.”
“The trial was fatally marred by the introduction of official Presidential acts that the Supreme Court has made clear cannot be used as evidence against a President,” the filing said. “The jury was instructed incorrectly, allowing a conviction without the unanimity required by both New York law and basic due process. Beyond these fatal flaws, the evidence was clearly insufficient to convict.”
On top of that “overwhelming error,” the filing argued Merchan should have recused himself but never did, even though the defense claimed to have, at minimum, established an “appearance of bias.”
“[T]he trial was conducted by a judge who refused to recuse himself despite having made political contributions to President Trump’s electoral opponents and despite having disqualifying family conflicts. For each of these independent reasons, President Trump’s conviction must be set aside,” the brief said.
Near the end of the brief, Trump attorneys dedicated a whole section to spelling out just why, in their view, Merchan should have recused himself from presiding over the case, starting with the $35 total he donated to ActBlue and the Stop Republicans PAC in 2020.
“These prohibited political contributions standing alone required recusal here. New York’s bright-line rule against such contributions exists to guard against the ‘heightened risk that the public … might perceive judges’ as biased towards or against ‘a particular political leader or party,’” the filing said. “That risk was at its apex in this extraordinary case.”
If Merchan had instead donated to Trump, DA Bragg would have “rightly” flipped out, the brief continued.
“There is little doubt that DANY would have cried foul if Justice Merchan had donated $35 to President Trump’s 2020 campaign, and rightly so,” Trump lawyers said, asking the appellate division to “reverse the judgment of conviction and dismiss the indictment.”
