What were the grounds and outcomes of appeals from Merchan’s criminal‑trial rulings in New York state courts?
Executive summary
Justice Juan M. Merchan’s criminal-trial rulings in the Manhattan “hush‑money” case spawned multiple, overlapping appeals in New York state courts challenging his scheduling decisions, gag orders, recusal denials and post‑verdict actions — many of which were rejected or temporarily rebuffed by state appellate judges while other challenges remained pending as of the reporting. Appellate outcomes to date include denials of emergency delays of trial and sentencing, repeated rejection of recusal arguments tied to a relative’s political work, and ongoing litigation over gag‑order limits and post‑verdict relief [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Appeals to delay or move the trial: grounds and short‑term outcomes
Defense lawyers sought appellate intervention to delay Merchan’s trial date principally on two grounds: the need for more time to review late‑arriving evidence from a prior federal investigation and the claim that extraordinary publicity justified postponement or transfer; state appellate judges refused emergency relief and kept Merchan’s April 15 trial schedule intact when asked to postpone it until summer [1]. The appeals court’s refusal to grant a stay or delay made clear that Merchan’s prior scheduling decisions — including moving the trial from March 25 to April 15 — were not deemed “clear” abuses warranting interim appellate relief, at least in the short term [1].
2. Gag order challenges: why they were appealed and what courts did
Merchan issued a gag order limiting public statements about court personnel, counsel and family members after targeted social‑media attacks, and the defense immediately appealed that restraint as overbroad and constitutionally suspect; the appellate docket took up the matter while Merchan expanded the order after additional allegedly hostile remarks, and state judges repeatedly reviewed such restrictions amid parallel federal examples that had been upheld on appeal [4] [1]. Coverage indicates that New York’s appellate benches have considered similar gag orders in other high‑profile cases and have, at times, sustained them on appeal; reporting also notes that Merchan’s gag order was set for appellate consideration, and that judges have declined to stay his orders in emergency requests [4] [5].
3. Recusal and ethics fights: grounds, investigatory findings and appellate posture
Trump’s team repeatedly moved to disqualify Merchan, arguing bias stemming from Merchan’s daughter’s work for Democratic clients and from Merchan’s own tiny political donations; a New York State ethics panel and Merchan himself rejected those claims as failing to show a reasonable basis for partiality, and Merchan denied the recusal motions as “rife with inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims,” leaving the judge in place while related appeals were pledged [3] [6] [4]. That rejection was a key loss for the defense at the state level, prompting separate public‑records and disclosure litigation and further appeals aimed at the judge’s continued involvement [7] [3].
4. Post‑verdict appeals: immunity arguments, requests to overturn verdict and sentencing stays
After conviction, defense lawyers pivoted to asking Merchan and state appellate courts to set aside the verdict or to halt sentencing pending appeals, chiefly asserting that the U.S. Supreme Court’s presidential‑immunity decisions should require dismissal or a stay; Merchan refused to halt sentencing and state appellate judges denied emergency requests to postpone sentencing while appeals were pursued, leaving the conviction intact for immediate state‑court processing even as appellate challenges continued [2] [8] [3]. News reports document that the defense filed multiple state‑court avenues — direct appeals and Article 78 proceedings — but reporting does not yet show a final appellate reversal of Merchan’s post‑verdict rulings as of the cited coverage [5] [3].
5. Competing narratives, institutional interests and reporting limits
The defense framed most appeals as necessary to protect due process and to avoid prejudicial publicity; prosecutors and supporters of Merchan emphasized the public interest in timely proceedings and judicial ethics findings that undercut recusal claims, while observers noted that state courts historically have upheld narrowly tailored gag orders and generally defer to trial judges on scheduling absent clear error [4] [1] [5]. Public reporting documents denials of emergency relief and recusal refusals, but available sources in this set do not provide final resolutions of all appellate strands — for example, whether every appeal of the conviction or of expanded gag orders was ultimately sustained or reversed — and therefore cannot assert outcomes beyond what those reports show [2] [5] [3].