From Judge Merchan's ruling on sentencing (PDF)...
... As indicated above, the Defendant has been found guilty on 34 felony counts. The significance of the fact that the verdict was handed down by a unanimous jury of 72 of Defendant's peers, after trial, cannot possibly be overstated. Indeed, the sanctity of a jury verdict and the deference that must be accorded to it, is a bedrock principle in our Nation's jurisprudence. ...
With respect to Defendant's claim of an "unconstitutional crusade" against him and "unlawful investigative leaks," both claims have been raised previously and rejected by this Court. ...
Finding no legal impediment to sentencing and recognizing that Presidential immunity will likely attach once Defendant takes his Oath of Office, it is incumbent upon this Court to set this matter down for the imposition of sentence prior to January 20,2025.
It is this Court's firm belief that only by bringing finality to this matter will all three interests be served. A i"ry heard evidence for nearly seven weeks and pronounced its verdict; Defendant and the People were given every opportunity to address intervening decisions, to exhaust every possible motion in support of and in opposition to, their respective positions are what is an unprecedented, and likely never to be repeated legal scenario.
This Court must sentence Defendant within a reasonable time following verdict; and Defendant must be permitted to avail himself of every available appeal, a path he has made clear he intends to pursue but which only becomes fully available upon sentencing. This Court has considered and now rejects the People's suggestion that it adopt the "Alabama Rule" which would preserve the jury verdict while terminating the proceedings as such a remedy would deny Defendant the pathway he needs to exhaust hrs appellate rights.
The Court has also considered the People's alternative proposal of holding sentence in abeyance until such time as Defendant completes his term of Office and finds it less desirable than imposing sentence prior to January 20, 2025. The reasons are obvious. However, if the Court is unable to impose sentence before Defendant takes his oath of ofhce, then this may become the only viable option.
While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant, opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court's inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, 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 conjunction with the underlying 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 a. Re1es,72 Misc 3d 1133 [Sup Ct New York County 20'11). ...
Apologies for any remaining typos in that copy 'n' paste.
