There are many ways to describe Donald Trump. But one, more than any other, will follow him through history. Felon. Last Thursday, the 45th President of the United States became the first ever U.S. President to be found guilty in a court of law.
Last Thursday, at 2:20 p.m. Denver time, a jury of seven men and five women, sent a note to New York State Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan that it had reached a verdict. Within the hour, Donald Trump, a man who once bragged that he is “always right” and almost miraculously remained just out of the law’s grasp, surviving not one but two impeachments, sat grimly as a jury foreman pronounced him guilty of 34 felonies.
Trump’s guilty verdicts were almost immediately assailed by a chorus line of uniformly dressed Republican congressional supplicants and failed candidates, each taking aim at prosecutors and the presiding judge and jury, as had Trump countless times before. The trial, they said, was both unnecessary, “a sham…scam…unfair,” using rehearsed talking points.
“No, absolutely not,” said attorney Ryan Brackley, who once practiced law as a Manhattan DA before moving to Colorado. The case was meticulously constructed and filing it was basically a matter of seeking judgment, he said. The presiding judge, Judge Juan Merchan, Brackley added, simply did his job.
“I knew Judge Merchan back when I was practicing in New York,” said Brackley, now a private attorney in Denver. Claims that Merchan was biased and handpicked, he said, are both absurd and baseless. “They (judges) are randomly assigned for cases like this.”
Merchan “has a history and reputation of being fair and impartial,” he underscored. Trying this case, the native New Yorker said, came with “novelty and extreme, unprecedented circumstances.” It was the defendant, a former U.S. President, not the judge, who created the drama and litany of second guessing.
During the course of the 22-day trial, Trump’s behavior, everything from sleeping in court to animated gestures to audibly cursing Merchan’s rulings, resulted in ten contempt of court violations and $10,000 in fines.
The ex-president’s day after news conference was rote resuscitation of claims of bias and persecution, an ad infinitum and vintage performance of Trump’s siren song of criticism. He, more than once, took crude and direct aim at Merchan in almost juvenile and arguably racist terms, calling him ‘conflicted, ’crooked,’ and criticizing the fact that Merchan came to the U.S. as a child from Colombia.
“Take a look at where he comes from,” Trump said on more than one occasion over the course of the trial.
Trump’s curtain calls covered the gamut, from suggesting his team had its hands tied on witnesses to exaggerated characterizations of the proceedings.
“We weren’t allowed to use our election expert…this was all done by Biden and his people…there’s never been a more conflicted judge…I’m supposed to go to jail for 187 years,” Trump wailed in a litany of day-after non-sequiturs. Fact checking proved each allegation baseless.
Judge Merchan did not bar a Trump witness, an election expert, but did limit what he could testify to. Trump’s counsel made no effort to call the election expert. But other witnesses included Hope Hicks, a long-time Trump acolyte and former administration spokesperson, and his own former attorney, Michael Cohen, a once loyal sideman turned Trump’s biggest detractor.
The case was a New York case, not brought by the Justice Department nor the Biden administration as Trump alleges. Further, the inquiry into hush-money payments began in 2018, long before DA Bragg took office and well before Biden was elected.
The 187-year prison sentence Trump conjured? Once again, surreal arithmetic. Each of the 34 counts for which he was found guilty carries a maximum of four years—136 years if the sentence was to run consecutively. Similar cases tried in New York have resulted in one-to-four-year sentences. The judge may instead pursue another statutory path which includes no incarceration for which there is on-going debate.
Trump must soon report to sit for an interview with court officials that will be considered when Merchan decides the ex-president’s sentence. Jail? Home confinement? Or something else?
“This is going to be a logistical nightmare,” said Brackley. Jail would potentially mean joining his ex-CFO, Alan Weisselberg, now serving a perjury sentence in New
York’s Rikers Island. “Here’s a guy who has Secret Service protection…can that be a factor,” asked the former Manhattan prosecutor. “He (Merchan) will figure out the best way to implement any sentence.”
Merchan, said Brackley, must decide if a 77-year-old man—even if he is an ex-president—must be treated like any convicted person. “The jury pretty convincingly said he was proven guilty” of illegally falsifying business records to cover up a $130,000 payment to an adult film star before the 2016 election. The judge must also weigh Trump’s repeated disrespect and disregard for the court, said Brackley. Trump’s ten contempt violations, he said, showed “disrespect to the judge and witnesses.”
Trump’s attorneys almost immediately announced that the verdict will be appealed. Of course, a decision on an appeal will not come until after the ex-president is sentenced on July 11th. But court watchers say while the appeal may be denied, it will neither shock nor surprise if it is successful. There is a deep shade of legal ‘gray’ that could work in Trump’s favor.
Trump’s legal team is expected to argue that the law for which he was found guilty—a state false records election law—was expanded to cover a federal campaign violation. On this point, Brackley says things could swing in Trump’s favor. “There are a number of issues that are novel,” including jury instructions that will play out in the appellate process.
One thing that Brackley and so many other trial observers took notice of was the full-court press of high-level, uniformly dressed Trump supporters, from congress members to governors, whose appearance may have been choreographed to not so subtly influence the jury or, perhaps, influence Trump.
“That did not play well,” said Brackley. “Jurors notice that kind of thing…they saw it for what it was.” Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert was among the group. Others present for the trial, some perhaps auditioning as potential running mates with Trump, include Senators Rick Scott and Tim Scott, also-ran presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum.
The shockingly quick verdict by the jury surprised neither the ex-president’s supporters nor his detractors. Neither will a suspended sentence, probation or even jail for Trump when he is sentenced on July 11th. A number of high-ranking former Justice Department officials, including former federal judges, say Trump should be jailed. Former Denver Mayor, presidential cabinet secretary and attorney, Federico Peña, believes Trump must be treated no differently than any other citizen.
“Trump has already earned 10 contempt citations but without repercussions,” said Peña. Judge Merchan, he said, will fairly review Trump’s past conduct and other pending criminal cases and “determine whether the defendant is remorseful about his conduct.” If Judge Merchan’s sentence includes incarceration, said Peña, “I would support his decision.”
