Just last week, as the false business records case involving Donald Trump pushed towards handing over to the jury, District Attorney Alvin Bragg claimed two small victories. These were the result of a couple of rulings from the Appellate Division. Initially, the appeal panel denied a request to change the trial location from Manhattan – a location where Trump is reported to have less support – to Staten Island, or potentially Alabama.
In the past, Trump had sought to adjournment of the case due to “pretrial publicity”, highlighting the jury pool’s overwhelming support for his opponents in the 2016 and 2020 elections. Justice Juan Merchan rejected this motion, attributing majority of the surrounding publicity to Trump’s own statements and continuous media posts targeting those he perceived as responsible for his predicament.
Trump, unable to secure a fair trial in Manhattan, as per his claims, presented a number of motions that were all denied. The First Department panel recently issued an order affirming the earlier denial of adjournment. The order came about six weeks post an emergency hearing.
A second order released by the court extended to four pages, unusually long for the First Department. It might have been due to Trump’s “Article 78 Petition on Order to Show Cause”. The petition included a wide-ranging protest against all pretrial rulings in the case. Issues raised in these objections included: Trump’s dissatisfaction with the judge’s instruction to limit filing unnecessary motions; the court’s refusal to rule his tweets as “official acts” safeguarded under the doctrine of presidential immunity; and most notably the refusal of Justice Merchan to recuse himself given that his daughter operates a Democratic political communications firm.
“The unconstitutional effects of Justice Merchan’s rulings are causing ongoing, irreparable constitutional harms to Petitioner and the voting public, and if not stopped, will prevent the Petitioner from receiving a fair trial,”, Trump argued in his emergency petition.
The First Department panel dismissed these claims, stating that the trial court has the overall discretion to manage its docket in favor of judicial economy. They added that all claims regarding the court’s abuse of its discretion can be pursued on direct appeal. The panel observed that Trump filed multiple recusal requests against Justice Merchan, one of them being time-barred and the other, preceding the second denial of the judge, was “not ripe at the time of filing”.
The panel concluded the decision by stating, “Exercise of such discretion would not be warranted in this case, where relief would interfere with the normal trial and appellate procedures, and, without opining on the merits, the matters herein identified by petitioner may be raised in a direct appeal.”
More information can be found in the full report at Above the Law.