'A twist': Ex-prosecutor flags 'interesting footnote' in judge's Trump sentencing filing

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan left a little surprise for Donald Trump in the court's recent sentencing filing in the president-elect's criminal case, a legal expert said.

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance wrote on her Substack about how, in her view, Merchan actually made the best out of a bad situation when he announced he wouldn't be sentencing Trump to jail time.

"Given that they are stuck with a bad situation that is out of their control—a convicted defendant about to become president—they are doing the best they can to preserve the conviction itself," Vance wrote. "Trump would like to do away with it altogether. They seem intent on preventing that from happening, and it would be a disgrace if Trump is able to get out from under the jury’s verdict."

ALSO READ: 'Bring it on': Defiant Raskin responds to GOP threats of retaliation for J6 investigation

In that same blog post, which is dated Sunday Jan. 5, Vance draws attention to one specific way Merchan tried to protect the conviction.

"What will sentencing look like if we get there? The Judge shared his view of the seriousness of the process when he discussed the sanctity of jury verdicts," she wrote. "There is also a very interesting footnote that comes during his discussion of the Trump lawyers’ frequent allegations of misconduct, even criminality, by the prosecution team and the Judge himself."

Vance goes on to say that, in the footnote, "Judge Merchan refers to Chief Justice Roberts’ recently issued report on the state of federal courts, in which the Chief Justice chastised people who question the courts."

"In a twist the Chief Justice may not have anticipated, Judge Merchan wrote, 'Dangerous rhetoric is not a welcome form of argument and will have no impact on how the Court renders this or any other Decision.' In other words, don’t expect the Judge to kowtow to the future president," the attorney wrote. "Respect for the importance of the office and the needs of the American people, absolutely. Abject deference, no. This is a Judge who is going to talk to this defendant as he would to any other following a conviction."

Read the full post here.