I spent nearly 13 years as a judge in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. I oversaw judges handling a wide variety of cases involving complex legal issues, outraged victims, difficult defendants and intense media scrutiny. The job can sometimes be thankless and frustrating.
But of all the cases I have seen, I have never seen anything as difficult as the one Judge Juan Marchan faced in his Manhattan courtroom as he presided over the first criminal trial of a former president. And since Donald Trump was convicted on 34 counts, Marchan has come under even more intense attack.
As a retiree, I was able to attend every day of the Trump trial, and what I witnessed was a master class in how a judge should be — how to serve the prosecution and defense fairly and impartially, and above all, how to remain a pillar of the rule of law in America.
Judge Marchan has been under relentless pressure since the indictment was issued last year over the hush money cover-up. Defendant Trump and his supporters have slammed the judge and his family in deeply personal terms. Most judges try to remain calm under extreme stress, but few succeed. But Judge Marchan remained cool and composed at every stage of the trial.
As a Supervising Judge, I have always stressed the importance of maintaining control over those under my jurisdiction. That is how a judge ensures that all defendants, especially the most difficult defendants, receive a fair trial. That is how everyone is treated respectfully and sentences are given fairly and justly. In this area, Judge Marchan was outstanding.
Judge Marchan issued a gag order carefully designed to protect witnesses, jurors, prosecutors and court officials, but exempted himself from it, to ensure that the defendant’s right to harshly criticize the trial was protected, but he must have known that this would make him an even greater target for Trump’s wrath. When Trump repeatedly violated the order, Judge Marchan did everything in his power to keep the defendant from going to prison, despite clear legal justification.
It is unlikely that a defendant who acted in a similar manner would receive such lenient treatment. But extraordinary times and extraordinary cases may call for extraordinary measures. Judges need to know when to apply such measures.
He maintained his composure throughout the trial. The defense received many favorable rulings, and in some cases (such as during Stormy Daniels’ testimony) he raised and maintained objections on the defense’s behalf during direct examination. And when Trump engaged in particularly objectionable behavior (such as swearing at a witness while he was testifying), he calmly called a defense attorney into the courtroom to stop the inappropriate behavior. Another judge might have called out the behavior directly, embarrassing Trump in front of the jury and casting a negative light on the defendant.
While the judge has never unnecessarily interjected opinions for either the prosecution or the defense, not everyone agrees. For example, in a recent New York Post opinion piece, lawyer Alan Dershowitz called Judge Marchan’s handling of defense witness Robert Costello’s behavior “one of the most flagrant instances of misdirection I’ve ever seen.”
Maintaining order and fairness in a court of law is not prejudice, it is the way justice is delivered and it is not easy to get.
Since the ruling, Republicans have launched further attacks against Judge Marchan. An Arizona Republican running for Congress called Judge Marchan a “corrupt and biased political activist” and said he “must be disbarred and prosecuted.”
Let me be clear: these attacks are not directed at Judge Marchan. They are a direct attack on our entire justice system. As President Biden said in his remarks on this case Friday afternoon, these attacks are reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible.
But I agree with Mr. Dershowitz’s position in the same opinion piece that the trial should be televised in New York State so that everyone can see for themselves what I saw every day, and what he saw the day he was there. For most Americans who followed this case, all they could see was from the media swarms outside the courtroom.
Judge Marchan had to draw a line between Trump’s disturbing but protected speech (excluding any violations of gag orders) and the factual evidence and questions central to the trial, and in so doing he protected the integrity of the rule of law.
I know there are deep divisions in our country regarding the wisdom and strength of this case, but I believe Judge Marchan’s decision has served the American people well.
George Grasso is a retired New York City Administrative Judge and former First Deputy Chief of Police.
The Times is committed to publishing Diverse characters To the Editor: Tell us what you think about this article or any other article. Tips. And here is our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section Facebook, Instagram, Tick ​​tock, WhatsApp, X and thread.
