Judge Merchan's decision to defer sentencing in Trump's New York State criminal conviction is highly problematic, for two reasons. His decision stated:
The public's confidence in the integrity of our judicial system demands a sentencing hearing that is entirely focused on the verdict of the jury and the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors free from distraction or distortion. The members of this jury served diligently on this case, and their verdict must be respected and addressed in a manner that is not diluted by the enormity of the upcoming presidential election. Likewise, if one is necessary, the Defendant has the right to a sentencing hearing that respects and protects his constitutional rights.
The jury already fulfilled its obligation well outside any reasonable "window" that should be granted around a public figure engaged in a political campaign being subjected to criminal justice for actions years before the current campaign. The judge is responsible for extending their decision about guilt or innocence by factoring in potential penalties and making that final decision, which is the judge's decision alone to make. This particular instance was complicated by a Supreme Court meddling in issues about federal law and evidence about communications of a sitting President about "Presidential acts" which in theory have NOTHING to do with the core crimes adjudicated in this New York State case that occured BEFORE the defendant became President.
In short, it would appear the jury did the hard work. The remaining work may be awkward, it may be unpleasant, but it would appear to have less opinion involved in the final outcome that could be distorted by any perceived political pressure or concerns about an election. As long as external politics don't affect the JUDGE'S sentencing decision, it isn't the JUDGE'S job to worry if his sentencing decision affects external politics. This smacks of James Comey all over again... Someone trying to outguess multiple layers of caroms arising from his job and altering the timing of his actions to somehow "optimize" the "fairness" of a larger universe of actors and behaviors he can neither control or predict.
More importantly, Merchan's rationale for defering the sentencing decision seems to directly conflict with the approach publicly stated by US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkin in a hearing on September 5, 2024 in which she rejected a request from Trump's counsel to postpone formal presentation of arguments regarding dismissal until after the election. The attorney for Trump objected to any schedule for conducting that hearing earlier than the election saying the prosecution could expose new information at a "sensitive time" for the defendant. Chutkan rejected the argument, stating such concerns were "not relevant" and "I am definitely not getting drawn into an election dispute." In essence, she was stating this entire criminal process was STARTED months ago and, once initiated, her obligation was to ensure it proceeded as quickly as possible while preserving all due rights of the defendent.
Having a federal and state court issue seemingly conflicting opinions on back to back days regarding the scheduling of legal actions they must perform involving the criminal prosecution and sentencing of a citizen of the United States simply because that citizen is a public figure not only highlights the fact the defendent IS getting special treatment in violation of the courts' obligation to dispense equal justice, those conflicting opinions serve as additional excuses for the defendent to file more motions and objections about disparate treatment and further delay justice by doing so.
WTH
