In his decision denying Trump’s Clayton motion. Justice Juan Merchan eventually addresses the final piece to his felony conviction in New York County, sentencing. The judge set January 10th, a mere week after the issuance of the decision, for sentencing, with the express reason being that the defendant be sentenced in advance of his assuming the position of president.

Finding no legal impediment to sentencing and recognizing that Presidential immunity will likely attach once Defendant takes his Oath of Office, it is incumbent upon this Court to set this matter down for the imposition of sentence prior to January 20,2025. It is this Court’s firm belief that only by bringing finality to this matter will all three interests be served. A jury heard evidence for nearly seven weeks and pronounced its verdict; Defendant and the People were given every opportunity to address intervening decisions, to exhaust every possible motion in support of and in opposition to, their respective positions in what is an unprecedented, and likely never to be repeated legal scenario. This Court must sentence Defendant within a reasonable time following verdict; and Defendant must be permitted to avail himself of every available appeal, a path he has made clear he intends to pursue but which only becomes fully available upon sentencing.

While it’s obviously true that the defense was given far greater latitude than pretty much any defendant ever prosecuted at 100 Centre Street, and the court’s rejection of the “Alabama Rule” that would eliminate any need for sentence but also his right to appeal, Justice Merchan decided not to hold sentencing in abeyance until after Trump’s term of office because “[t]his Court must sentence Defendant within a reasonable time following verdict.”

While it seems that the window for this concern has already been lost given the court’s acquiescence to delay for the defense’s myriad post-trial motions, it’s the driving force for sentencing on January 10th. On the other hand, Justice Merchan makes clear his sentencing intentions.

While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant, opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation. As such; in balancing the aforementioned considerations in conjunction with the underlying concerns of the Presidential immunity doctrine, a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options.

Much as many fantasized about a sentence of incarceration for an E felony by a first-time offender, such a harsh sentence never seemed likely. But announcing an intended sentence in advance of sentencing is curious. An unconditional discharge means that the defendant will not only avoid any imprisonment, but will further avoid any conditions which, if violated, could impair the discharge of any sentence. If, for example, the defendant was to announce on social media on the day after sentence his intention to engage in criminal conduct, there is nothing to be done about it. Does that serve any of the legitimate purposes of sentence?

There are five legitimate purposes to sentence.

1. Specific deterrence
2. General deterrence
3. Retribution
4. Isolation
5. Rehabilitation

Other than the first and second rationale, there is little to be gained by sentencing Trump. Does an unconditional discharge serve any deterrence? Sure, Trump will remain a felon, assuming the verdict isn’t reversed on appeal, but that hasn’t proven to be much of a drawback either from his re-election or his circumstances. While a criminal conviction may have a deleterious effect on most people, it’s meant almost nothing to Trump, whose supporters shrug it off as merely a political attack by New Yorkers who hate him anyway.

Under the unique circumstances of this case, is there any purpose to sentencing Trump other than to complete the process of prosecution, even though the “reasonable time” for sentence was before he was re-elected? More to the point, perhaps, as the voters have decided that the conviction was of such little concern that they re-elected Trump anyway, what is gained by the imposition of a sentence that will have absolutely no impact on the defendant whatsoever? Or must it be done anyway, because that’s what the process demands?

Update: After this was posted, Jonathan Alter wrote about this in the New York Times:

So Trump will probably have to live out his years as a felon — a life sentence of disgrace that will stain the honors of high office. It’s not the punishment he deserves, but it’ll do.

Why he believes the conviction will not be reversed, at least to some extent, by the New York courts is unclear, but assuming he’s correct, will it do? While Alter, and many others, will consider Trump’s living out the rest of his life as a felon to be a disgrace, will Trump? I have my doubts.