For this reason…the appeal must be won
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Marchand, who presided over the “hush money” trial of former President Donald Trump that concluded with a conviction on 34 counts, should have declined to take up the case. Certainly, Marchan should have recused himself from the case as soon as Trump’s lawyers demanded his resignation. It is true that in response to this request, an appeals court ruled last month that Trump “did not prove that he had a clear right to demand the judge’s recusal.” But I expect that this clarity will emerge during the appeal stage of the conviction, which will be submitted shortly after his sentencing next month.
Several legal analysts who evaluated the case, finding it a troubling departure from the norm regarding how criminal law should be used and criminal trials conducted, identified their favorite and “most compelling” argument for Trump’s success on appeal. My argument relates to Marchand’s astonishing decision to preside over the trial in the first place.
Let us start from July 2023, when the New York State Judicial Conduct Commission reprimanded Judge Marchand, issuing him a “warning,” because he made donations to President Biden’s re-election campaign and to two political action committees opposed to the Republicans and Trump: the Progressive Engagement Project. And “Stop the Republicans.”
It is worth noting here that New York prohibits its judges from making such political contributions, and if the details of the reprimand directed at Marchand are not revealed, it is expected to be the subject of great discussion during the crucial months that separate us from the election date.
Marchan donated $15 to the Biden campaign, and $10 to each of the two committees. But, why would anyone perform such an act laden with symbolism and significance after having sworn to be a judge and abide by the judicial code of honor? The reality is that we do not know, but it is possible that Marchand needed to deliver a message to the Biden team that he would be a good federal judge, or perhaps he just likes Biden, or perhaps he just hates Trump, etc. The truth is that we do not know because the judge was never forced to answer such questions.
Last year, New York’s Advisory Commission on Judicial Ethics ruled that Marchand did not have to recuse himself from the case after Trump’s legal team pointed not only to the judge’s donations to Democratic organizations, but also to his daughter’s work for Democrats, and to a proposal Marchand allegedly accused a former Trump Organization executive last year of cooperating against Trump in the company’s tax fraud case.
However, the advice of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics is not binding. Marchand was free to step down, and he should have done so. If Marchand’s explicit support for forces biased against a defendant in his courtroom does not require the judge to recuse himself from the case, then in this case we should stop listening to further calls for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr. to recuse himself from cases related to the events of January 6, because Some people are dissatisfied with his wife’s choice of the flags she raises.
In a recent episode of the “McCarthy Report” podcast, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy and National Review editor-in-chief Rich Lurie pointed to 10 grounds on which Trump’s legal team could seek to overturn the rulings issued against the former president.
For all these reasons, appeals courts should reconsider the significance of Marchan’s $35 political donations. The opinion of the Advisory Committee is not decisive on the issue of recusal, as is the decision of the first Court of Appeal. The judge’s refusal to recuse himself from this case will have to be examined in light of Marchand’s numerous rulings against Trump during the course of this trial.
But is there any doubt, outside of fervent anti-Trump circles, that Marchand is unqualified to take on this case because of his donations? He received only a reprimand from the Judicial Conduct Committee, perhaps because Marchand’s offense was his first, and because the amount of donations was very small. In fact, the judge’s lack of awareness of the appearance of impropriety arising from his donations, or his mere indifference to it, was supported and encouraged in the advisory committee’s decision, but the “Judicial Conduct Committee” clearly and unambiguously rebuked the judge last summer because of those donations. Therefore, Marchand’s decision not to recuse himself from the case remains puzzling.
The bottom line is that the judge’s robe that Marchand wears does not hide the shirt of his favorite team that he wears underneath, which bears the letter “D”, which is the first letter in the word “democratic.”
Published by special arrangement with the Washington Post Leasing and Syndication Service.
#reason…the #appeal #won