Judge Merchan upholds Donand Trump’s NY state convictions, suggests he will impose sentence of “unconditional discharge” next week

As reported in this AP piece, “a judge Friday set President-elect Donald Trump’s sentencing in his hush money criminal case for Jan. 10 — little over a week before he’s due to return to the White House — but indicated he wouldn’t be jailed.” Here is more:

Manhattan Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial, signaled in a written decision that he’d sentence the former and future president to what’s known as an unconditional discharge, in which a conviction stands but the case is closed without jail time, a fine or probation. Trump can appear virtually for sentencing, if he chooses.

Rejecting Trump’s push to dismiss the verdict and throw out the case on presidential immunity grounds and because of his impending second term, Merchan wrote that only “bringing finality to this matter” would serve the interests of justice.

He said he sought to balance Trump’s ability to govern, “unencumbered” by the case, against other interests: the U.S. Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity and the public’s expectation “that all are equal and no one is above the law,” and the importance of respecting a jury verdict. “This court is simply not persuaded that the first factor outweighs the others at this stage of the proceeding,” Merchan wrote in an 18-page decision.

Judge Merchan’s full 18-page ruling, which is available at this link, is primarily concerned with rejecting the defense team’s various arguments for dismissing all charges. As the very end, here is is how he explains his sentencing thoughts at the end of the decision:

While this Cout as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarcetation, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation.  As such, in balancing the aforementioned considerations in coniunction with the undetlying concerns of the Presidential Immunity doctrine, a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options.  Further, to assuage the Defendant’s concerns regarding the mental and physical demands during this transition period as well as the considerations set forth in the 2000 OLC Memorandum, this Court will permit Defendant to exercise his right to appear virtually for this proceeding, if he so chooses.  People v. Reyes,72 Misc 3d 1133 [Sup Ct New York County 2011].