Merchan, Juan M

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Takeaways From Trump’s Conviction in Hush-Money Trial

      by

      It was an end like no other for a trial like no other: a former American president found guilty of 34 felonies.The conviction of Donald Trump, read aloud shortly after 5 p.m. by the jury foreman as the former president sat just feet away, ended months of legal maneuvering, weeks of testimony, days of deliberation and several nervous minutes after the jury entered the Manhattan courtroom.The former president and the presumptive Republican nominee was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a scheme to cover up an extramarital tryst with a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in 2006. That encounter — which the former president denied — led to a $130,000 hush-money payment whose concealment gave rise to the 34 counts of falsifying business records that made Mr. Trump a felon.Mr. Trump’s sentencing is scheduled for July 11; he has indicated he will appeal.Here are five takeaways from the last day of Mr. Trump’s momentous trial.A grueling trial ended suddenly.Thursday, the second day of deliberations, seemed to be moving toward a quiet conclusion. Then, suddenly the word came from the judge, Juan M. Merchan: There was a verdict.Less than an hour later, the headlines reading “guilty” began to be written.The decision came just hours after the jury had asked to hear testimony involving the first witness — David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer — including his account of the now infamous 2015 meeting at Trump Tower where he agreed to publish positive stories and bury negative stories about Mr. Trump’s nascent candidacy.The Trump Manhattan Criminal Verdict, Count By CountFormer President Donald J. Trump faced 34 felony charges of falsifying business records, related to the reimbursement of hush money paid to the porn star Stormy Daniels in order to cover up a sex scandal around the 2016 presidential election.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 38 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump, culpable

      by

      [Ahora también estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos]El jueves, en un humilde juzgado del Bajo Manhattan, el expresidente y actual abanderado republicano fue declarado culpable de 34 delitos graves de falsificación de registros comerciales. La decisión del jurado, y los hechos presentados en el juicio, ofrecen otro recordatorio —quizás el más crudo hasta la fecha— de las muchas razones por las que Donald Trump no es apto para ocupar el cargo.El veredicto de culpabilidad en el caso del pago a cambio de silencio del expresidente fue emitido por un jurado unánime de 12 neoyorquinos elegidos al azar, que consideró que Trump, el muy posible candidato a la presidencia por el Partido Republicano, era culpable de falsificar registros comerciales para evitar que los votantes se enteraran de un encuentro sexual que él creía que habría sido políticamente perjudicial.Los estadounidenses pueden preguntarse sobre la importancia de este momento. La Constitución no prohíbe que las personas con una condena penal sean elegidas o ejerzan de comandante en jefe, aunque estén tras las rejas. Los fundadores de la nación dejaron esa decisión en manos de los votantes. Muchos expertos también han expresado su escepticismo sobre la importancia de este caso y sus fundamentos jurídicos, que se basó en una teoría legal inusual para buscar un cargo de delito grave por lo que es más comúnmente un delito menor, y Trump sin duda buscará una apelación.Sin embargo, lo mejor de este caso sórdido es la prueba de que el imperio de la ley obliga a todos, incluso a los expresidentes. En circunstancias extraordinarias, el juicio se desarrolló como cualquier otro juicio penal en la ciudad. El hecho de que 12 estadounidenses pudieran juzgar al expresidente y posible futuro presidente es una muestra notable de los principios democráticos que los estadounidenses aprecian.El juez Juan Merchan, el jurado y el sistema judicial neoyorquino impartieron justicia con celeridad, proporcionando a los estadounidenses información vital sobre un candidato presidencial antes de que comience la votación. Varias encuestas han demostrado que la condena afectará la decisión de muchos votantes.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Jury That Convicted Donald Trump

      by

      As the 12 jurors entered into the courtroom to deliver the verdict against Donald J. Trump, 11 of them looked ahead. But one looked in the direction of the defendant.At that moment, the juror knew what was about to happen. Mr. Trump did not.Moments later, the foreman would read the verdict convicting Mr. Trump of all 34 counts of falsifying business records with which he had been charged, making him the first American president to become a felon.The jurors — seven men and five women — remained expressionless as they were individually polled to confirm the verdict, even as Mr. Trump looked at them.Justice Juan M. Merchan then thanked them for their service, and then they filed out, going directly past Mr. Trump, who kept his eyes downcast as they walked by.Before they left, Justice Merchan told them they were free to discuss the case if they so pleased, but no juror has yet spoken to the news media. Because of the sensitivity of the case, their identities were kept secret to all, except the lawyers in the case, and the defendant. As news that the jury had reached a verdict spread beyond the courthouse, uniformed officers and sergeants standing outside could be seen speaking furtively to one another, as the whirring of helicopter blades droned on overhead.Parts of Columbus Park behind the courthouse were blocked off to reporters, with court officers scolding some that they risked tampering with the jury by being so close.The jurors piled into black vans with tinted windows that zipped north along Baxter Street, cutting against traffic as they zoomed away from the courthouse, and the first conviction of an American president.Molly Cook EscobarMolly Cook EscobarMolly Cook EscobarMolly Cook EscobarMolly Cook Escobar More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Cuáles son las penas que Trump podría enfrentar si es condenado?

      by

      Cada uno de los 34 cargos conlleva la posibilidad de hasta cuatro años de prisión, pero el encarcelamiento no es un hecho: el juez podría optar por imponer una pena de libertad condicional, sin pasar tiempo en prisión.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]Si Donald Trump es declarado culpable, le corresponderá al juez Juan Merchan decidir si su pena incluye el ingreso a prisión.Trump está acusado de 34 cargos de falsificación de registros comerciales relacionados con el encubrimiento de un pago de 130.000 dólares a la actriz porno Stormy Daniels en los días previos a las elecciones de 2016.Todos los cargos son delitos graves de clase E, que es la categoría más baja de delito grave en el estado de Nueva York.Cada cargo conlleva la posibilidad de hasta cuatro años de prisión. Pero si Trump es condenado por más de un cargo, Merchan probablemente impondría una sanción de manera concurrente, lo que significa que el expresidente tendría que cumplir penas de prisión por cada uno de los cargos simultáneamente.El encarcelamiento no es un hecho: Merchan podría optar por imponer una pena de libertad condicional, sin tiempo de prisión. Trump tendría que presentarse periódicamente ante el Departamento de Libertad Condicional de Nueva York. También podría ser encarcelado si cometiera delitos adicionales.Es muy probable que el juez Merchan dicte la sentencia de Trump varias semanas después del veredicto de culpabilidad. Pero existe la posibilidad de que cualquier sanción se retrase.Trump, quien es el virtual candidato presidencial republicano, apelará sin duda cualquier condena, un largo proceso que podría llevar meses o más y que probablemente no se resolvería antes del día de las elecciones. En ese caso, probablemente seguiría en libertad hasta que se resolviera la apelación.Aún no ha habido ningún indicio de lo que Merchan decidiría, aunque ha hecho saber que se toma en serio los delitos de cuello blanco. Trump lo ha atacado continuamente calificándolo como “parcial” y “corrupto”.Kate Christobek cubre los casos civiles y penales contra el expresidente Donald Trump para el Times. Más de Kate Christobek More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Hush-Money Case Heads to the Jury: Takeaways From Closing Arguments

      by

      As the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump began its seventh week, the prosecution and the defense made their final pitches to jurors, sending the landmark case into deliberations on Wednesday.A defense lawyer, Todd Blanche, spent three hours Tuesday hammering Michael D. Cohen, the prosecution’s star witness, including accusing him of perjury. He attacked Stormy Daniels, the porn star whose account of a tryst with Mr. Trump in 2006 set in motion the charges the former president faces.The prosecution countered with an even longer, more detailed summation, pushing into the evening. A prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass, guided jurors through reams of evidence they had introduced and elicited, including testimony, emails, text messages and recordings.Mr. Trump, 77, is charged with falsifying 34 business records to hide Mr. Cohen’s reimbursement for a $130,000 hush-money payment he made to Ms. Daniels. Mr. Trump has denied the charges and the sexual encounter.Once deliberations begin Wednesday, no one knows how long they will take. If convicted, Mr. Trump — the presumptive Republican presidential nominee — could face prison or probation.Here are five takeaways from closing arguments and Mr. Trump’s 21st day on trial.‘Michael Cohen is a liar’ was a refrain. It may be the defense’s best bet.“The human embodiment of reasonable doubt.”The Links Between Trump and 3 Hush-Money DealsHere’s how key figures involved in making hush-money payoffs on behalf of Donald J. Trump are connected.The Donald Trump Indictment, AnnotatedThe indictment unveiled in April 2023 centers on a hush-money deal with a porn star, but a related document alleges a broader scheme to protect Donald J. Trump’s 2016 campaign.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      How the Media Is Covering Justice Merchan in Trump’s Criminal Trial

      by

      Conservative media has been preoccupied for weeks with Justice Juan M. Merchan, the New York judge presiding over the Manhattan criminal trial against former President Donald J. Trump.Mr. Trump has long attacked Justice Merchan and his family in social media posts and on his campaign website. But Justice Merchan did not earn a starring role in conservative media until after he issued a formal gag order against the former president, forbidding attacks against various people involved in the trial, including jurors and witnesses.Since then, right-wing commentators, most prominently on Fox News, have condemned the judge nearly daily in their coverage of the trial. They have painted Justice Merchan’s rulings as biased, decried small donations he made to Democrats in 2020 and suggested that his connection to his daughter, a Democratic political consultant, made him unfit to oversee the case. Liberal outlets have focused less on Justice Merchan, instead centering their coverage of the trial on the charges against Mr. Trump and the figures in his orbit. But some smaller outlets have praised Justice Merchan for clamping down on Mr. Trump.Here’s how it has played out:FROM THE RIGHTBreitbartIn addition to covering the trial as straight news, Breitbart has devoted significant attention to what Republicans see as Justice Merchan’s pro-Democratic bias.Justice Merchan donated $35 to groups that supported Democrats during the 2020 election, including $10 to a group called “Stop Republicans.” That, along with his daughter’s role as a consultant for Democratic candidates, has prompted Mr. Trump to call on the judge to recuse himself. (A state ethics panel last year dismissed a complaint against Justice Merchan with a warning over his donations. Justice Merchan has denied any wrongdoing.)We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A Tongue-Lashing for a Defense Witness Isn’t Great News for Trump

      by

      Eight times a day during his felony trial, a former president of the United States must stand and honor 12 jurors and six alternates as they walk past, eyes straight ahead or down, casting no glances at him. It’s inspiring to watch these ordinary citizens as sovereign soldiers for justice.On Monday this calm processional was disrupted, as jurors were forced to hurry out after a witness for the defense mocked the authority of the court. Moments later, Justice Juan Merchan ordered the courtroom immediately cleared, and reporters fled in a frenzy.The reason for all of this was the testimony of Robert Costello, an astonishingly arrogant former federal prosecutor who has defended the likes of George Steinbrenner and Leona Helmsley, borrowing a little of his nasty affect from each.Michael Cohen testified earlier that Costello and Rudy Giuliani were assigned by Donald Trump to open a back channel to Cohen to keep him in the Trump fold.Costello testified before a friendly House subcommittee last week that Cohen was a liar. This apparently impressed Trump and — presto! — Costello was the first important witness the defense called after the prosecution rested.On direct examination, Costello did next to nothing for the defense beyond landing a few more mostly irrelevant blows on Cohen.On cross-examination by the prosecution, however, you could almost see steam coming out of Costello’s ears. The temerity of this lowly local female prosecutor asking him questions! Merchan ruled earlier that Costello could testify only on certain subjects. When Merchan sustained several objections from the prosecution and struck a couple of Costello’s answers from the record, Costello decided to play judge.He muttered “ridiculous” and “strike it” after disliking a question. An enraged Merchan excused the jury and said sharply, “I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom.” He continued, “You don’t say, ‘Geez,’ and you don’t say, ‘Strike it.’ And if you don’t like my ruling, you don’t give me side-eye and roll your eyes.”Merchan apparently didn’t want reporters to hear the rest of his tongue-lashing and cleared the courtroom.None of this was good for the defense, which struggled all day to build on Thursday’s success in making Cohen seem he was lying about the purpose of his calls to Trump in late October 2016. Cohen looked bad admitting he passed $20,000 in cash in a paper bag to Red Finch, a tech firm that uses algorithms to rig online polls. But Trump looked even worse by directing Red Finch to cheat his way onto CNBC’s list of the most famous business leaders of the 20th century. Classic Trump.Jurors may conclude that the whole bunch of ’em are liars and reasonably doubt every word out of all of their mouths. At this point, that may be Trump’s best hope of avoiding conviction. More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Ethics Panel Cautions Juan Merchan, Judge in Trump Trial, Over Political Donations

      by

      Justice Juan M. Merchan, the judge overseeing Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial in Manhattan, donated modest amounts to Democratic groups in 2020.A state ethics panel quietly dismissed a complaint last summer against the New York judge presiding over the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump, issuing a warning over small donations the judge had made to groups supporting Democrats, including the campaign of Joseph R. Biden Jr.The judge, Juan M. Merchan, donated a total of $35 to the groups in 2020, including a $15 donation earmarked for the Biden campaign, and $10 to a group called “Stop Republicans.”Political contributions of any kind are prohibited under state judicial ethics rules.“Justice Merchan said the complaint, from more than a year ago, was dismissed in July with a caution,” the spokesman for the court system, Al Baker, said in a statement.A caution does not include any penalty, but it can be considered in any future cases reviewed by the state’s Commission on Judicial Conduct. A letter outlining the caution was not released because of the commission’s rules, and Justice Merchan did not make the letter available.“The Commission on Judicial Conduct is governed by a confidentiality statute and cannot comment on nonpublic dispositions,” said Robert Tembeckjian, the commission’s administrator.The commission’s decision was first reported by Reuters.In its 2024 annual report, the commission said it was made aware of dozens of New York judges who had violated the rules against political contributions in recent years. Most were modest amounts, the report said, and many appeared to stem from the misperception that the rules only apply to state campaigns. In fact, judges are prohibited from contributing to any campaigns, including for federal office.“Like so much of the misconduct the Commission encounters, making a prohibited political contribution is a self-inflicted mistake,” the commission wrote in the report.For Justice Merchan, the stakes of such a mistake are considerably higher than most: He is the first judge in American history to preside over the criminal trial of a former president.The donations in part fueled Mr. Trump’s efforts to have Justice Merchan removed from the case before the trial began. Mr. Trump’s lawyers also focused on Justice Merchan’s adult daughter and her work at a Democratic consulting firm.But Justice Merchan declined to recuse himself, appeals court judges declined to step in, and the trial is now nearing its conclusion.The case centers on a hush-money payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in the last days of the 2016 presidential campaign. Ms. Daniels says she had a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, but a $130,000 payment from Mr. Trump’s fixer bought her silence. Mr. Trump is accused of falsifying business records to cover up his reimbursement of the fixer, Michael D. Cohen, casting them as routine legal expenses.Mr. Trump has denied the accusations against him — and has lashed out at Justice Merchan and the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, who brought the case, noting that both are Democrats. More