Which judges presided over Donald Trump’s state criminal trials and what were their rulings?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Three state and federal judges played central roles in Donald Trump’s criminal cases referenced in the provided sources: Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan presided over the New York hush-money prosecution, sentencing Trump to an unconditional discharge on Jan. 10, 2025 [1] [2]; Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismissed the Georgia racketeering/election-interference indictment in November 2025 after the state moved to drop charges [3] [4]; and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan handled scheduling and pretrial motions in the federal Jan. 6 prosecution, pausing trial dates while immunity issues proceeded [5]. Sources differ on procedural posture and outcomes: the New York conviction and sentence are reported alongside later appeals and administrative moves, Georgia’s case was dismissed by the state and the judge, and the federal case saw stay/delay and immunity litigation [1] [3] [5].
1. Juan Merchan — New York hush‑money trial: conviction, sentencing and limited penalties
Juan Merchan presided over People v. Donald J. Trump in Manhattan, where a jury found Trump guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records; Merchan later sentenced him to an unconditional discharge on Jan. 10, 2025, a sentence the court record and Lawfare reporting treat as the formal disposition of that case [1] [2]. Merchan also managed pretrial matters including gag-order adjustments and scheduling tied to the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, and he delayed or modified sentencing dates as those higher‑court questions were litigated [5] [6]. Ballotpedia and court documents referenced in the sources record Merchan’s active docket management through late 2024 and early 2025 [2] [7].
Alternative perspective / limitations: reporting indicates prosecutors and defense both pursued appeals and filings after the verdict; the Lawfare timeline notes the Department of Justice dismissed certain related appeals, and Ballotpedia records ongoing appellate activity through 2025 — the sources show continued legal contestation beyond the sentencing date [1] [7].
2. Scott McAfee — Fulton County judge who dismissed Georgia racketeering case
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee issued an order dismissing the Georgia racketeering/election‑interference indictment “in its entirety” after Fulton prosecutors moved to drop remaining charges, closing what had been the last unresolved criminal case against Trump after his 2024 election win, according to multiple reports [3] [4]. Coverage notes prosecutorial decisions and internal issues within the district attorney’s office — including prior disqualification of the lead prosecutor and debates over severing defendants — that framed McAfee’s dismissal order [3] [4]. Fox News and CNBC descriptions emphasize the state’s view that separate trials or compelling a sitting president to appear in Georgia were impractical and burdensome [4].
Alternative perspective / limitations: Sources show the dismissal followed a prosecutorial motion rather than a full trial verdict; reporting highlights internal prosecutorial scrutiny (disqualification of Fani Willis) and prosecutors’ explicit policy reasons for dropping charges [3] [4]. Available sources do not include the full opinion text explaining McAfee’s legal reasoning beyond the dismissal order language [3].
3. Tanya Chutkan — federal Jan. 6 case management and immunity pauses
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan oversaw the federal election‑interference prosecution in D.C., repeatedly pausing trial scheduling while appellate and Supreme Court immunity questions were resolved; she declined to set trial dates while the D.C. Circuit and later the Supreme Court weighed presidential‑immunity claims [5]. Chutkan rejected a motion to dismiss on immunity grounds on Dec. 1 in one referenced summary, reflecting the district court’s resistance to immunity arguments before higher courts weighed in [8] [5]. The federal docket’s delays and stays under Chutkan illustrate how immunity litigation reshaped timing and scope of federal proceedings [5].
Alternative perspective / limitations: The Supreme Court later clarified that former presidents have “some immunity” for official acts, which affected downstream scheduling and appeals; sources underline that lower‑court procedures were responsive to that shifting higher‑court doctrine [5]. Available sources do not provide a final trial verdict or sentence in the federal case within the provided snippets — they report stays, motions, and appeals [5] [8].
4. How the cases fit together and why outcomes diverged
The three judges ruled at different stages and under different institutional constraints: Merchan presided over a state criminal trial that produced a jury verdict and a nominal sentence [1], McAfee issued a case dismissal after prosecutors moved to drop charges in Georgia amid prosecutorial turmoil and practical concerns [3] [4], and Chutkan managed a federal docket dominated by immunity litigation and appellate pauses rather than a final district‑court disposition in the sources provided [5]. The divergences reflect prosecutorial choices, jury findings, pretrial immunity litigation, and state versus federal procedures documented in the reporting [1] [3] [5].
5. What the sources do not say and what to watch next
The provided reporting does not include full written opinions explaining all legal reasoning for McAfee’s dismissal or Chutkan’s full orders, and it does not supply final appellate outcomes for every proceeding mentioned — for example, the federal case’s ultimate final judgment is not found in these snippets [5] [3]. Readers should watch appellate dockets and the cited court pages (Merchan’s court site and federal appellate decisions) for authoritative, detailed rulings and for any post‑sentencing appeals referenced by Ballotpedia and Lawfare [2] [7] [1].