‘There’s no agenda here’ says judge overseeing Trump trial
NEW YORK — Judge Juan M. Merchan looked across his high-ceilinged courtroom, facing the defendant in a complicated case.
Not the one everyone knows about.
Yes, Merchan could become the first judge ever to oversee a former U.S. president’s criminal trial: Donald Trump’s hush money case. But on a recent morning, the judge was attending to much less conspicuous cases in Manhattan’s once-weekly Mental Health Court, where selected mentally ill offenders agree to closely monitored treatment in hopes of getting charges dismissed and their lives on track.
As Merchan talked with defendants about their progress, stumbles, jobs, families and even workouts, it was a far cry from the upcoming trial in which Trump will be at the defense table, but the judge also will be in a hot seat.
The ex-president and presumptive Republican nominee has called Merchan a “Trump-hating” judge, and defense lawyers unsuccessfully asked him to exit the case. Merchan received dozens of death threats after Trump slammed him on social media last year.
Ten days before jury selection was to start, Merchan on Friday postponed the trial until at least mid-April because of a last-minute evidence dump. He scheduled a March 25 hearing on next steps.
Merchan wouldn’t talk about the case last week, but allowed that getting ready for the historic trial is “intense.”
He is striving “to make sure that I’ve done everything I could to be prepared and to make sure that we dispense justice,” he said in an interview, emphasizing his confidence in court staffers.
“There’s no agenda here,” he said. “We want to follow the law. We want justice to be done.”
“That’s all we want,” he said.
THE PATH TO TRUMP’S CASE
Born in Colombia, Merchan emigrated as a 6-yearold and grew up in New York. He worked his way through college, graduated from Hofstra University’s law school, and was a state lawyer and Manhattan prosecutor before being appointed a family court judge in 2006. Three years later, he was assigned to a felony trial court, which New York calls a state Supreme Court.
Now 61, he has presided over cases alleging murder, rape and many other crimes: a multimilliondollar investment fraud, a clubland stabbing, stolen laptops, harassment.
He oversaw trials of three men who parachuted off the rebuilt World Trade Center’s tallest skyscraper and of at least one defendant in a sprawling Social Security disability fraud case against police officers, firefighters and others accused of faking psychological problems to get benefits.
Merchan is still dealing with the aftermath of the 2012 case of Anna Gristina, the “soccer mom madam” whose alleged exploits spurred a 2021 Lifetime movie. She now wants to rescind her guilty plea and is suing the judge to try to get some case transcripts unsealed. Lawyers for Merchan have said the sealing was justified.
MERCHAN AND TRUMP
The spotlight on Merchan grew white-hot in the last three years as he took on cases involving Trump’s company, its former longtime finance chief Allen Weisselberg and, eventually, Trump himself.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to doctoring business records to veil a 2016 effort to squelch claims of extramarital affairs, which he denies. Prosecutors say he was trying to protect his first campaign; he has said he is fighting a “fake case” brought to impede his current run.
Trump wasn’t charged in the tax fraud case against his company, the Trump Organization. A jury voted to convict. Merchan imposed a $1.6 million fine, the legal maximum. The company denied wrongdoing and is appealing.
If some might see Merchan’s familiarity with the Trump Organization case as preparation for the hush money trial, the expresident and his lawyers see a problem.
They have asserted Merchan has “preconceived bias” against Trump, saying the judge strong-armed Weisselberg behind the scenes into taking a plea deal, agreeing to testify in the tax fraud case and serve a five-month jail sentence.
Merchan and prosecutors have disputed the claims. The judge wrote that defense lawyers drew “misleading” conclusions from an “inaccurate” portrayal of his involvement in Weisselberg’s plea negotiations.