The judge who oversaw Donald J. Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial declined for a third time to step aside from the case, rebuking the former president’s lawyers for claiming that the judge had a distant connection to Vice President Kamala Harris that posed a conflict.
In a 3-page decision dated Tuesday, the judge, Justice Juan M. Merchan, who has no direct ties to Ms. Harris, slammed Mr. Trump’s filing seeking his recusal as “rife with inaccuracies” and repetitive.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers had argued that the judge’s daughter “has a longstanding relationship with Harris” — a claim her colleagues have disputed — and cited her “work for political campaigns” as a Democratic consultant.
But prosecutors with the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which secured Mr. Trump’s conviction in May on felony charges of falsifying business records, called his request “a vexatious and frivolous attempt to relitigate” an issue that Justice Merchan had already twice dismissed.
Justice Merchan, a moderate Democrat who was once a registered Republican, rejected Mr. Trump’s initial bid to oust him last year and did so again in April, on the first day of trial. The judge cited a state advisory committee on judicial ethics, which determined that his impartiality could not reasonably be questioned based on his daughter’s interests.
Mr. Trump, who has lashed out at the judge’s family and stoked right-wing furor against his daughter, Loren Merchan, renewed the recusal request once President Biden abandoned his presidential campaign and Ms. Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee. She is now locked in a tight race with Mr. Trump, who has falsely portrayed his conviction as a Democratic plot to foil his campaign.
“Stated plainly, defendant’s arguments are nothing more than a repetition of stale and unsubstantiated claims,” Justice Merchan wrote in his ruling. Underscoring his frustration with the defense’s repetitive filings, he added, “this court now reiterates for the third time, that which should already be clear — innuendo and mischaracterizations do not a conflict create. Recusal is therefore not necessary, much less required.”
Justice Merchan’s decision, while anticipated, is consequential nonetheless: It enables him to soon decide two crucial matters that will shape Mr. Trump’s legal fate.
On Sept. 16, the judge is scheduled to determine whether to throw out Mr. Trump’s conviction following the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting him broad immunity for official actions as president. The former president’s long-shot request was vigorously opposed by prosecutors, who urged Justice Merchan to uphold the jury’s verdict, noting that the case had nothing to do with Mr. Trump’s official acts in the White House.
A jury of 12 New Yorkers convicted Mr. Trump on all 34 counts, concluding that he had falsified records to cover up a hush-money payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, in the final days of the 2016 campaign. After his fixer, Michael D. Cohen, paid Ms. Daniels $130,000 to bury her story of a sexual liaison with Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump repaid Mr. Cohen and approved plans to lie on paperwork to hide the nature of the reimbursement, the jury found.
If Justice Merchan denies Mr. Trump’s immunity motion, as expected, Mr. Trump could mount an emergency appeal. But if that fails, the judge would then proceed with Mr. Trump’s sentencing on Sept. 18. Mr. Trump faces up to four years in prison, but could receive a far shorter sentence, or even probation.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers had asked the judge to rule on the recusal first, arguing that “Decisions by Your Honor on the pending presidential immunity motion and at any sentencing would benefit not only Harris but also the professional aspirations and financial status of Your Honor’s daughter.”
But a letter from Ms. Merchan’s employer, Authentic Campaigns, sent to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and released on Tuesday, asserted that the company had not had a contract to work for Mr. Biden’s campaign since 2020 nor Ms. Harris’s campaign since 2019. It also said that employees of the company had not communicated with Justice Merchan about Mr. Trump’s case.
Mike Nellis, who founded the company, also disclosed that he and Ms. Merchan had faced death threats and harassment.
“It is concerning that Republican members of this committee are using valuable time and taxpayer dollars to perpetuate a false right-wing conspiracy theory instead of focusing on the pressing issues facing our nation,” Mr. Nellis wrote. “This is a disgraceful misuse of power and a disservice to the American people.”
Justice Merchan has not addressed the congressional scrutiny, though in his latest ruling he implied that Mr. Trump’s lawyers were close to crossing a line. “Counsel has been warned repeatedly that such advocacy must not come at the expense of professional responsibility in one’s role as an officer of the court,” he wrote.
The judge’s coming decisions on immunity and sentencing will culminate the battle that Mr. Trump has waged with Justice Merchan since before he was arraigned.
Days before he first set foot in the judge’s courtroom, Mr. Trump blasted him on social media, saying it would be “IMPOSSIBLE” for “a Trump Hating Judge” to oversee a fair trial. Mr. Trump also spread an online hoax that falsely claimed Loren Merchan had publicly posted an image of him behind bars.
Mr. Trump eventually asked Justice Merchan to step aside, citing his daughter’s political ties and his own modest donations to Democratic candidates.
As the trial began, Justice Merchan denied Mr. Trump’s second request to have him removed, telling the courtroom “there is no agenda here” and “we want justice to be done.”
The post Judge Denies Trump’s Recusal Bid, Rebuking Him for Claiming Harris Ties appeared first on New York Times.
