Which judges oversaw Donald Trump's New York state criminal trial and what were their key rulings?
Executive summary
The New York state criminal case against Donald J. Trump was presided over at trial by New York Supreme Court Justice Juan M. Merchan, whose courtroom decisions shaped pretrial immunity fights, gag and contempt orders, and the timing of sentencing; parallel federal and appellate judges also issued rulings that affected the case’s forum and evidence disputes, most notably U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein on the question of removal to federal court [1] [2]. The prosecution’s and defense’s competing characterizations of those rulings—Merchan as rigorously enforcing courtroom rules and the defense as improperly denying immunity or recusal—reflect the adversarial and high‑stakes political context reported in contemporaneous coverage [3] [4].
1. Juan Merchan: the trial judge who set the procedural frame
Juan M. Merchan served as the trial judge for The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump and handled virtually all day‑to‑day criminal proceedings: he denied motions to recuse, presided over trial conduct issues, imposed a gag order limiting public commentary about court staff and prospective jurors, held contempt hearings and fined the defendant for violations, and ultimately set sentencing scheduling and rulings around presidential‑immunity arguments [1] [2] [5] [4]. Merchan explicitly concluded that presidential immunity did not shield conduct that occurred outside official duties—a critical determination in the defense’s attempt to derail state prosecution—and used that finding to keep the case moving toward sentencing even as appeals were filed [3].
2. Key immunity and forum rulings: Alvin Hellerstein and the federal court thread
Before the state trial reached Merchan’s courtroom, federal judges weighed in on whether the matter belonged in federal court; District Judge Alvin Hellerstein opined that the alleged conduct likely was not presidential activity and ruled the case should remain in state court, rejecting the defense’s removal arguments and setting an early template for the prosecution to proceed in state forum [2] [6]. That federal ruling was central to the defense’s later interlocutory appeals about immunity and removal, which in turn prompted filings to higher courts including an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court recorded in public dockets [7].
3. Evidence, witness and related pretrial rulings that shaped what jurors heard
A series of pretrial and trial rulings governed what evidence and witnesses were admissible: Merchan ruled that certain witnesses such as Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen could testify with some limitations, restricted social‑media sharing of discovery materials to prevent tainting the process, and excluded certain items like the Access Hollywood tape from jury presentation while allowing discussion about it [2]. Federal decisions also intersected; for example, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan allowed deposition video from an unrelated civil suit (E. Jean Carroll) to be provided to Manhattan prosecutors, an evidentiary decision that prosecutors said could be used in building the People’s case [2].
4. Recusal fights, appellate responses and how judges at other levels weighed in
The defense repeatedly sought Merchan’s recusal, arguing conflicts tied to his family connections and purported bias; New York’s Appellate Division rejected the recusal appeals and found the defense had not shown Merchan had overstepped—an outcome that reinforced the trial judge’s authority and undercut one of the defense’s primary procedural strategies [4]. After conviction and sentencing scheduling, appellate judges and panels continued to be active: in the separate civil fraud matter an Appellate Division produced split opinions that both upheld fraud findings and criticized the size of disgorgement, underscoring how New York’s multi‑layered judiciary reached different conclusions on overlapping Trump litigation even as Merchan’s criminal rulings stood [8] [9].
5. Competing narratives and limits of available reporting
Prosecutors framed Merchan’s rulings as legally grounded enforcement of court process and an appropriate boundary on immunity; the defense portrayed the same orders as politically motivated constraints that violated due process—an adversarial split apparent in press coverage and filings [3] [4]. Reporting documents Merchan’s concrete orders—gag, contempt findings, witness rulings, immunity denials, and sentencing scheduling—but this briefing cannot exhaust every ancillary discovery dispute or later appellate outcome not captured in the cited sources, and therefore does not assert the final appellate posture beyond what the provided records report [5] [7].