Is Justice Juan Merchan the Modern "Man of La Mancha"?

(Author Photo)

I call him Judge because that’s what I’m used to saying.  You can call him Justice if you want.  Because that’s what he is doing.

A further thought occurred to me that I would like to offer to you so that you might also think about it.  The thought occurred to me after I published a previous article on Substack on January 6, 2025 and here on the Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog on January 8, 2025 with some thoughts on Judge Merchan’s Decision and Order of January 3, 2025.

Decision and Order of January 3, 2025 Page 1.  (Author Photo)

The further thought is this:  He did not have to set a sentencing date at all.

Like so many people, he could have just avoided trouble and let the sentencing issue come and go without stopping to write an order about it.  Surely Judge Merchan knew that entering an order would bring unwanted responses that would be unpleasant, at best.  He wrote the order nonetheless.

He said that he scheduled a sentencing hearing for two reasons.  First, it is his job.  The New York Statutes are laws, not simply recommendations.  It is the job of a trial judge in the New York State Courts to set a sentencing hearing when a Defendant has been convicted of crimes. 

Judge Merchan’s second reason is that he owes it to any Defendant to schedule sentencing within a reasonable time in any criminal case and so this 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.”  (Decision and Order at page 17.)

Balancing the considerations raised by this case, Judge Merchan wrote, “a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options.”  (Decision and Order at page 17.)

It would have been easier for this judge to do nothing, to take no action and hope that he would be safe, or at least safer than if he denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and Vacate the Jury’s Verdict.  Judge Merchan denied the Defendant’s motion and scheduled the Defendant’s sentencing.  Even while scheduling the sentencing in this case,  Judge Merchan cut the Defendant some slack and allowed him the opportunity to appear for the sentencing hearing virtually rather than making this Defendant appear in person.  Judge Merchan did not have to do any of this, but he did.

We have entered a time when courage is mocked and honor will be forgotten if we do not memorialize them.  This is my small effort to remember what this one person has done in the face of enormous contrary pressures, to act honorably and with courage despite all of the many reasons that counselled against acting at all.

The entry of this Decision and Order under the circumstances, including at a time when so many people in prominent positions fail or refuse to perform the duties they once swore to do, reminds me of the ending lines of a song that was popular when the nation and I were younger, Man of La Mancha.   I offer you those lines here, slightly altered (you will see how and I am certain that you will understand why I thought of these lines):

And the world will be

Better for this

That one judge, scorned

And covered with scars

Still strove with his last

Ounce of coverage ....

To do justice.  Remember that we can all do justice.  Remember that at least one judge did.  We can all do justice and we can all remember.

Decision and Order of January 3, 2025 Page 18.  (Author Photo) 

The Defendant filed a number of appeals in different appellate courts after this Decision and Order was entered, seeking a stay.  Currently the reporting is candidly in a shambles as the people reporting obviously do not know the process themselves.  We know however that the Defendant filed a motion in the New York State trial court, the New York State intermediate appellate court, and in New York State's hightest court, the New York Court of Appeals, for an immediate stay of sentencing.  We also know from diligently following the reports that each of those courts has denied Defendant's stay motions.

There have also been reports that the Defendant is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay, and reports that Justice Sonja Sotomayor is considering a stay motion before it gets to the full U.S. Supreme Court.  Maybe there is truth in all of the reports, as it appears that the Defendant and his lawyers are in another one of their frenzies so that maybe they filed stay motions in all of these courts.

Judges, including Justice Sotomayor, do your best.   Whatever happens, the fact of the Verdict and the fact of this Decision and Order will never change.

Remember.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter.   An earlier version of this article was published on Substack.

I call him Judge because that’s what I’m used to saying.  You can call him Justice if you want.  Because that’s what he is doing.

A further thought occurred to me that I would like to offer to you so that you might also think about it.  The thought occurred to me after I published a previous article on Substack on January 6, 2025 and here on the Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog on January 8, 2025 with some thoughts on Judge Merchan’s Decision and Order of January 3, 2025.

Decision and Order of January 3, 2025 Page 1.  (Author Photo)

The further thought is this:  He did not have to set a sentencing date at all.

Like so many people, he could have just avoided trouble and let the sentencing issue come and go without stopping to write an order about it.  Surely Judge Merchan knew that entering an order would bring unwanted responses that would be unpleasant, at best.  He wrote the order nonetheless.

He said that he scheduled a sentencing hearing for two reasons.  First, it is his job.  The New York Statutes are laws, not simply recommendations.  It is the job of a trial judge in the New York State Courts to set a sentencing hearing when a Defendant has been convicted of crimes. 

Judge Merchan’s second reason is that he owes it to any Defendant to schedule sentencing within a reasonable time in any criminal case and so this 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.”  (Decision and Order at page 17.)

Balancing the considerations raised by this case, Judge Merchan wrote, “a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options.”  (Decision and Order at page 17.)

It would have been easier for this judge to do nothing, to take no action and hope that he would be safe, or at least safer than if he denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and Vacate the Jury’s Verdict.  Judge Merchan denied the Defendant’s motion and scheduled the Defendant’s sentencing.  Even while scheduling the sentencing in this case,  Judge Merchan cut the Defendant some slack and allowed him the opportunity to appear for the sentencing hearing virtually rather than making this Defendant appear in person.  Judge Merchan did not have to do any of this, but he did.

We have entered a time when courage is mocked and honor will be forgotten if we do not memorialize them.  This is my small effort to remember what this one person has done in the face of enormous contrary pressures, to act honorably and with courage despite all of the many reasons that counselled against acting at all.

The entry of this Decision and Order under the circumstances, including at a time when so many people in prominent positions fail or refuse to perform the duties they once swore to do, reminds me of the ending lines of a song that was popular when the nation and I were younger, Man of La Mancha.   I offer you those lines here, slightly altered (you will see how and I am certain that you will understand why I thought of these lines):

And the world will be

Better for this

That one judge, scorned

And covered with scars

Still strove with his last

Ounce of coverage ....

To do justice.  Remember that we can all do justice.  Remember that at least one judge did.  We can all do justice and we can all remember.

Decision and Order of January 3, 2025 Page 18.  (Author Photo) 

The Defendant filed a number of appeals in different appellate courts after this Decision and Order was entered, seeking a stay.  Currently the reporting is candidly in a shambles as the people reporting obviously do not know the process themselves.  We know however that the Defendant filed a motion in the New York State trial court, the New York State intermediate appellate court, and in New York State's hightest court, the New York Court of Appeals, for an immediate stay of sentencing.  We also know from diligently following the reports that each of those courts has denied Defendant's stay motions.

There have also been reports that the Defendant is asking the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay, and reports that Justice Sonja Sotomayor is considering a stay motion before it gets to the full U.S. Supreme Court.  Maybe there is truth in all of the reports, as it appears that the Defendant and his lawyers are in another one of their frenzies so that maybe they filed stay motions in all of these courts.

Judges, including Justice Sotomayor, do your best.   Whatever happens, the fact of the Verdict and the fact of this Decision and Order will never change.

Remember.

Please read the disclaimer.  ©2025 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  Interested in many things including Claims and Bad Faith Law?  Sign up for a free subscription to my Substack newsletter.   An earlier version of this article was published on Substack.