I’m sure most of us just saw Trump’s post-verdict statement. Trump asserted, in no uncertain terms, that the trial (the hush money trial)was rigged, and the judge is corrupt.
Could Merchan file a defamation suit? Is he fair game for some reason?
Half the country believes everything Trump says. He may have seriously put everyone involved with this trial in jeopardy.
I think you can call him a public figure at this point since he has been in the news 24/7 for months, so I think if nothing else it would raise the standard to actual malice.
Maybe he could sue but could you imagine what would happen during appeals if the judge of the trial was suing the person who was appealing said trial?
That would amount to a conflict of interest and he would have to recuse himself from sentencing and any other cases relating to Trump.
Good point. Trump might want him to sue which would probably be dragged out for years, meanwhile it mucks up the process of his current conviction.
Merchan would probably be wiser ignoring it.
If Merchan retires it might make sense for him to sue Trump. But not that much sense, a judge would realize the potential pitfalls for doing that. He will do better by writing a book, largely because he’ll never collect any money from Trump even if he wins a defamation suit.
Ok, thanks all, makes sense.
I’m just grasping for some way to hold this guy legally responsible for such a strong and and potentially dangerous statement. He is a powerful man. His supporters have killed for him before.
Probably a little less after today.
a conflicted judge who was corrupt
Doesn’t seem like it would cross the line into defamation to me (especially in the US where the bar is high). But IANAL.
Also who needs a defamation suit when you have sentencing hearing ! 
Eh, legally, it’s arguable that Trump is expressing an opinion. You can’t sue somebody for expressing an opinion.
He has said similar (rigged trial, corrupt and conflicted judge, etc.) every day after court for the last few weeks, so if nothing happened as a result of those remarks, I don’t see anything happening now.
Besides, as somebody said elsewhere here, judges are probably used to guilty defendants calling them every name in the book after the verdict is rendered. If they’re bothered by it, they don’t show it.
I’m not sure it’s the wisest thing to do, insulting the judge in the interval between being found guilty and being sentenced for it.
I am wondering if Trump wants a harsh sentance. Getting prison time for a first offence white coller crime is very unusual and would be further “proof” that the trial was rigged and the judge was corrupt.
.
This. I think it is defamation. It is, I think, per se slander, which means that it’s so obviously defamatory that the plaintiff does not have to prove damage to their reputation. But, you can’t be a judge and have thin skin. It’s a serious accusation, but probably is by far not the worst thing the judge has had said about him.
I do agree with the point about Trump being reckless with the power he wields over a lot of precariously unstable people though. The words themselves aren’t the thing the judge might be concerned about. What Trump’s crazy-ass cult members might do with that “information” is the bigger issue.
I’m not sure what voter list from hell I’m on, but I get regular texts that start with “From Trump” and rage about something being unfair, or about how the Cheeto desperately needs my support. 
Anyway, I got one a few minutes ago that said, “PRAY FOR OUR COUNTRY! THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS RIGGED!” And told me that if I love America, I need to PLEASE READ NOW, with a weird looking link. I didn’t click the link, but I pasted it into an incognito browser, just for giggles. All I got was a page not found error.
Nice job, guys! Now I’ll never know the truth! I reported the text as spam, and blocked the number.
That’s not what per se defamation means.
Yes, damages are presumed, but that’s based on the type of defamation, not the strength of the evidence.
The categories of defamation per se in New York are:
- Charging a plaintiff with a serious crime;
- Stating false facts that tend to injure a plaintiff in his or her business trade or profession;
- Charging that a plaintiff has a loathsome disease;
- Imputing that a plaintiff is unchaste.
https://www.laxneville. com/amp/defamation-slander-and-libel.html
[broken link since it goes to a commercial law firm]
Now, arguably, saying a judge is corrupt and conflicted would tend to injure him in his profession, but it’s arguable that those terms are too ambiguous to be counted as facts. As I’ve already said, if it’s a mere opinion, it’s not actionable (compare “the judge is totally corrupt” with “this judge accepted a bribe to rule against me”)
File? Yes.
Would it show good judicial temperament? No.
I have a related question. In New York, is contempt of court a legitimate reason to move towards of the upper range in sentencing?
I know what it is. And the category is based on the idea that things like saying a business person is engaged in fraud are presumed to damage the person’s reputation.
I didn’t write anything about the strength of the evidence.
In addition, I have no doubt that calling a judge corrupt is per se slander. I have not looked at NY law, but the Supreme Court has said that a statement couched in terms of opinion is still defamatory if it implies knowledge of underlying facts. Here, Trump’s words are not even couched in terms of opinion. He is making factual statements.
If he gets a harsher sentence, he could skip the country claiming to be a “martyr in exile” and his followers would believe him. Hell, there would be Congresscritters that would back him on that.
I haven’t followed every case against Trump and probably he hasn’t yet been arraigned on many of the bigger ones yet. The Georgia election count? The classified files? Would these be serious enough to take Trump’s passport? (I know he has access to planes yet would love to know what country - don’t say Russia - would let him stay there)