In his most recent motion, Trump again raised concerns about an alleged conflict of interest, claiming that Merchan’s daughter stood to gain financially from the court’s decisions, as had been addressed in earlier motions to convince the judge to recuse.
Trump’s legal team argued that “the political and financial interest” of the judge’s daughter could influence the rulings. The claim was first introduced on May 31, 2023, when Trump sought Merchan’s recusal for the first time.
Merchan dismissed Trump’s third motion as “nothing more than a repetition of stale and unsubstantiated claims,” and repeated his earlier view that there was no need for recusal.
The judge said in the latest ruling that the court had preemptively sought guidance from the Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics, which concluded that there was no ethical breach as his daughter was not involved in the case. Merchan did not refer to his daughter in the ruling, instead referring only to a family member.
He emphasized that the right to an impartial jurist is fundamental to due process, but this principle must be balanced against attempts to avoid adverse rulings through unfounded claims of bias. The judge quoted from a previous decision, stating, “innuendo and mischaracterizations do not a conflict create.”
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office argued a position similar to that of the court, labeling Trump’s motion as a “vexatious and frivolous attempt” to re-litigate an issue that had been conclusively settled. They argued that the motion was not only redundant but also an improper use of judicial resources.
Merchan’s ruling underlined his commitment to judicial integrity, noting that he will continue to base his rulings on evidence and law “without fear or favor.” He added that Trump’s counsel had repeatedly relied on inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims, which the court had already dismissed.
The decision follows a unanimous jury verdict on May 30, that found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Merchan wrote that the court had set a deadline of June 13 for post-verdict motions, but Trump did not file any motions within that time frame, according to the order.
The third motion for recusal was filed on July 31, and Merchan wrote that because an extension was not sought first, the credibility of the filing was called into question.
Trump’s lawyers have also asked the judge to throw out his conviction following the U.S. Supreme Court’s July ruling giving former presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office. Merchan has said he will decide on this issue by Sept. 16, two days before the scheduled sentencing hearing.
