On Friday, legal analyst Alan Dershowitz voiced strong disapproval of a judge's decision that he claimed misled the Supreme Court during the sentencing of President-elect Donald Trump.
Judge Juan Merchan sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge after he was found guilty of 34 felony charges, a decision criticized by Dershowitz for its potential influence on the Supreme Court's involvement and the positions of at least two of its justices, as the Daily Caller reports.
In May, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of multiple counts of falsifying business records. The charges were connected to a $130,000 payment made to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress, which Trump had previously asserted was a legitimate business expense.
Dershowitz criticized Judge Juan Merchan for disclosing that Trump would face an unconditional discharge, arguing that the disclosure swayed the Supreme Court's decision. "What Judge Merchan did was so sleazy and so sneaky," Dershowitz remarked, stating that in his extensive legal experience, he had never been informed of a sentence in advance. He suggested that Merchan's actions prevented the Supreme Court from intervening by making them aware the sentence would not include jail time.
The Supreme Court had previously denied Trump's request to halt his sentencing. Dershowitz contended that had the court not been aware of Merchan's sentencing intentions, their decision might have been different. He labeled Merchan's actions as an attempt to manipulate the justice system beyond what he previously coined as "lawfare."
The Supreme Court's ruling declared that any alleged evidence issues in Trump's state-court trial could be addressed through regular appeals. The court further noted that any burden the sentencing would place on the President-elect's responsibilities was minor due to the nature of the sentence.
The justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh showed support for Trump's application to block the sentencing. Despite this, the majority of the court decided not to intervene, leaving the door open for appeals in the standard legal process.
Trump participated virtually in the sentencing and issued a robust defense, denying the falsification of documents. He claimed that the payment in question was merely a "legal expense." Following the sentencing, Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, expressing his intent to appeal the case. He denounced the trial as a "despicable charade" and reiterated his belief that the case lacked merit.
Dershowitz echoed Trump's sentiments, calling the decision harmful to American democracy and a misuse of the legal system. He suggested that not only had Trump been wronged, but the true casualty was the American public. The former Harvard professor, who has long been a vocal critic of what he describes as "lawfare," argued that Merchan’s actions were an egregious example of manipulating the justice process. By announcing a non-custodial sentence ahead of the Supreme Court's decision, Dershowitz believed this created a prejudiced view that impacted the court's choice not to act.
The notion of lawfare, about which Dershowitz has written since the late 1960s, refers to the abuse of legal systems against an enemy. In this case, he viewed Merchan's preemptive announcement of Trump’s sentencing as an unjust maneuver.
The unconditional discharge issued by Merchan meant Trump faced no jail time, fines, or probation. As such, the implications for his presidency appeared minimal on the surface. However, Allan Dershowitz’s assertions that the sentencing was improperly executed could provide substantial fuel for Trump's forthcoming appeals. Following the ruling, Trump remained defiant, insisting on his innocence and framing the trial as a politically motivated attack. His appeals are expected to challenge both the decision and the conduct of the trial.
As Trump prepares to appeal, the broader legal community watches with keen interest. Questions remain about the potential impacts on Trump's political career and the future landscape of American jurisprudence.
The case has sparked conversations about the intersection of politics and the judiciary, focusing on how substantial influence from high-profile cases can affect legal precedents and public trust. Trump and his legal team will likely continue to focus on these broader themes as they navigate the appeals process. With the appeal, Trump’s legal endeavors against what he terms as baseless allegations are set to persist, keeping the public's and media’s attention firmly engaged.
