newYou can now listen to Fox News articles.
“The law is an ass” is a British proverb now widely used by some American judges who are neither sensible nor impartial.
New York Judge Juan Marchan consistently proves the point by abusing Donald Trump in the ill-advised, if not farcical, prosecution brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. I've done it. The case resulted in a scheduled guilty verdict last May in a trial that stands as a monument to injustice.
But on Friday, following Trump's presidential victory, Marchan reluctantly agreed to formally consider a defense motion to cancel the sentencing, which had been scheduled for next week, and dismiss the case altogether. Any reasonable and fair judge would approve of that. That may exclude merchants.
New York judge grants Trump's request to dismiss indictment, vacates sentence indefinitely
In previous letters to the judge, defense attorneys have made a persuasive argument that the conviction should be set aside, given that their client has been selected to be the next commander in chief. That is a constitutionally unique position.
They correctly assert that “immediate dismissal is mandated by the federal Constitution, the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, and the judicial interest in promoting an orderly transition of the executive branch…”
In fact, it is well established that presidents are immune to infectious diseases. all criminal proceedings, state or federal. This same principle necessarily applies to the next president, who must be freed from the “chaos caused by the transfer of power.” (3 USC 102 memo)
States do not have the power to violate federal laws passed by Parliament, including transition laws. As the law explains, interference by local prosecutors and judges can jeopardize national interests and negatively impact the safety and welfare of the public.
Bragg vs. Trump: New York is drowning in crime. How can convicting a former president make us safer?
In Friday's order, Marchan also acknowledged that he has the power to set aside a verdict if there is a reversible error in the trial. There are so many that you would need a calculator with infinite technology to keep track of them.
Chief among them is that prosecutors relied on tainted evidence, which is prohibited under the presidential immunity standard promulgated by the Supreme Court on July 1.
Testimony from senior White House officials such as Hope Hicks and Madeline Westerhout, as well as numerous presidential records, should never have been introduced. These clearly constitute protected and therefore impermissible “official acts,” as the defense futilely argued before trial. Machan didn't move.
Judge Marchand's courtroom was a cesspool of incomprehensible decisions that deprived President Trump of a fair trial. Both the judge and the prosecutor worked together to reach a guilty verdict.
Mr. Bragg has been fighting the dismissal for several months. He implausibly claims that such exculpatory evidence is completely unimportant and has “no bearing” on the outcome. Really? So why did prosecutors emphasize the importance of that very evidence in their closing arguments?
Bragg, arguing that the court's reversible errors were simply harmless and had little or no impact on the jury's verdict, given Marchand's blatant anti-Trump bias throughout the trial. You may be able to stand by his side. If they do so, the justices must ignore how the high court specifically blocked analysis of this type of harmless error.
Trump official says brawler scandal is a “huge victory'' and “effectively over.''
If Marchand refuses to be fired, the Trump campaign could seek an immediate appeal on the immunity issue. This is such an affront to the law that it is very likely that the entire case will be overturned on this basis.
The trial court's immunity error was just one of many egregious errors made by Merchan. His courtroom was a cesspool of incomprehensible rulings that deprived President Trump of a fair trial. Both the judge and the prosecutor worked together to reach a guilty verdict.
They manipulated the law at every turn, fabricating evidence while operating outside the legal process. Political bias interfered with the defendant's right to due process. They were put through an industrial-sized shredder.
The accusations themselves were disorganized and complex. It is not yet known what crime Trump was convicted of. In theory, bookkeeping errors facilitated further crimes in an illegal attempt to influence the 2016 election.
But oh my goodness. What kind of crime exactly? Was it a violation of federal election law? Tax law?False business records? Choose from the aforementioned menu of imaginative possibilities.
Trump lawyer calls for “immediate dismissal'' of high-handedness lawsuit, says election trumps political “motives''
President Trump didn't know either because prosecutors didn't say anything. And the jury didn't do that either when deciding their verdict. In his chilling instructions to the committee, Mr Machan declared that there was no need to specify which crimes were allegedly committed, nor did there need to be unanimous agreement.
Former President Donald Trump appeared before Judge Juan Marchan for arraignment after surrendering to New York authorities in New York County Criminal Court earlier this year. (Photo by Seth Wenig Poole, via USA TODAY)
You're not alone in your headache. Even high school civics students know that unanimity in criminal convictions is a fundamental principle. The Supreme Court has repeatedly strengthened that standard. But Machan ignored it with impunity.
The dilemma for Mr. Trump is that he cannot appeal any legal errors made by the judge in court (other than an adverse immunity verdict) until there is a formal “judgment,” which can only be made at sentencing. That process is currently on hold indefinitely.
This is by design. Both Marchand and Bragg know that if the appeals court sees the travesty of the trial, their convictions will be overturned. That is exactly why they are seeking to delay or defer sentencing until perhaps after President Trump leaves office in 2029. The president will spend four years with a compulsory “Sword of Damocles” hanging over his head.
For more FOX News opinions, click here
If that was their nefarious plan, it would violate New York state law (CPL 380.30), which requires sentencing to occur “on a specified date within 12 months of conviction.” Machan doesn't care.
So far, he seems unfazed by the heavy weight of the law, which frowns upon Machiavellian machinations. Determined or desperate, his honor is dishonorably attached to a tenacious prosecutor. Trump was wrongly accused and wrongly convicted.
But Machan is adamant about continuing to prop up the torture case, which should have been quashed by him the moment the charges were filed. It was a harebrained prosecution from the beginning, motivated by politically driven prosecutors who gleefully embraced Democrats' corrupt legal campaign against Trump.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
This eight-year odyssey is the embodiment of a shameful miscarriage of justice.
The law itself is not stupid. But Melchan made it look like it.
Click here to read more about Greg Jarrett
