Judge Juan Merchan denied former President Donald Trump's request to adjourn his hush money trial.
The situation Defendant finds himself in is not new and at least partially of his own doing.
On April 12, 2024, Judge Juan Merchan denied former President Donald Trump's request to adjourn his hush money trial that was scheduled to start on Monday. The judge wrote in a four-page order that the situation Defendant finds himself in is not new and at least partially of his own doing. He also noted that any concerns about potential jurors being exposed to news about the case can be remedied by a robust jury selection process, which would allow for broader leeway in asking about political bias. The judge said Trump's lawyers separately asked for a slight modification to the jury selection process so they could have more freedom in questioning potential jurors. They also wanted to know how many potential jurors say they cannot be fair or impartial to Trump.
Judge Juan M. Merchan denied Donald Trump's request to postpone his hush money criminal trial because of publicity about the case.
Trump was accused of doctoring his company's records to hide the real reason for payments to Cohen, who helped bury negative claims about him during his 2016 campaign.
The Manhattan district attorney is prosecuting Trump and he pleaded not guilty last year to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. His lawyers argue that the payments were legitimate legal expenses.
Trump's hush money case is the first of his four criminal indictments slated to go to trial and would be the first criminal trial ever of a former president.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Trump's lawyers had argued that the jury pool was deluged with 'exceptionally prejudicial' news coverage of the case. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article and appears to be a misrepresentation of what actually happened.
The author claims that Trump's lawyers had argued that the jury pool was deluged with 'exceptionally prejudicial' news coverage of the case. However, this statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article and appears to be a misrepresentation of what actually happened.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy when it states that the judge turned down Trump's request for a delay. The author is not providing any evidence or reasoning behind this claim. Additionally, there are several instances of inflammatory rhetoric used by both parties in their arguments against each other.
The defense maintained that was a reason to hold off the case indefinitely.
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is biased towards Donald Trump. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who disagree with Trump's views. For example, the use of phrases such as 'scam' and 'fake news' are used to discredit anyone who disagrees with him.
It appears that Mr. Trump is taking a position that this situation and this case are unique, and that the pre-trial publicity will never subside.
The judge in Donald Trump’s hush money criminal case on Friday turned down the former president’s request to postpone his trial because of publicity about the case.
The Manhattan district attorney's office declined to comment on the matter.
The ruling came just three days before the trial is scheduled to start.
"'The situation Defendant finds himself in now is not new to him and is at least in part, of his own doing," Judge Juan Merchan wrote.
<span style=
Accuracy
If former President Donald Trump is convicted on all counts in his New York criminal hush money trial that begins April 15, he could theoretically face more than a decade in prison.
Instead, he would likely be sentenced to something between probation and four years in prison. And he would probably still be out, free to campaign for president as the presumptive or actual 2024 Republican nominee, while his all-but-certain appeal was pending.
<span style=
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'overwhelming pretrial publicity' and 'extremely significant to assessing the constitutional and statutory adequacy of the jury selection process'. This creates a false sense of urgency and importance for readers who may not fully understand what is at stake. Secondly, the author quotes Judge Merchan as saying that Trump's situation is not new to him and it is at least in part his own doing. However, this statement implies that Trump has been involved in similar situations before which could be misleading or false if there are no other instances of such behavior on his record. Lastly, the author mentions that Trump's lawyers separately asked for a slight modification to the jury selection process but does not provide any further details about what they were asking for. This lack of transparency and context makes it difficult to fully understand their reasoning or intentions.
The situation Defendant finds himself in now is not new to him and is at least in part, of his own doing,
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. Firstly, the author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Judge Juan Merchan wrote a four-page order denying Trump's request for adjournment. However, this does not necessarily mean that the judge is correct or unbiased in his decision. Secondly, there are instances of inflammatory rhetoric used throughout the article such as
The situation Defendant finds himself in now is not new to him and is at least in part, of his own doing,
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of political bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes Trump by referring to him as a 'former president' and using quotes from his lawyers to further the narrative that he is trying to move the case out of Manhattan where potential jurors may have an anti-Trump bent.
defendant takes the position that his situation and this case are unique
The ruling came just three days before the trial is scheduled to start.
Three days before the start of Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial,
If former President Donald Trump is convicted on all counts in his New York criminal hush money trial that begins April 15, he could theoretically face more than a decade in prison.
Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Each count carries a maximum sentence of four years.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Trump could face more than a decade in prison if convicted on all counts. However, this statement is misleading as the maximum sentence for each count is only four years and he would likely receive probation or less.
The article falsely claims that Trump could face more than a decade in prison if convicted on all counts.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing legal experts who spoke to USA TODAY and stating their opinions on the potential sentence for Donald Trump if convicted in his New York criminal hush money trial. This is a form of informal fallacy as it relies on the credibility of sources without providing any evidence or logical reasoning behind their claims. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Trump's behavior towards Judge Juan Merchan and stating that he has tested boundaries and feuded with him. This is a form of informal fallacy as it relies on emotional appeals rather than logical reasoning.
Former President Donald Trump's first criminal trial starts on Monday, despite several failed efforts to have it delayed.
Jimmy Kimmel joked that the only move left for Trump is to have sex with everyone in the court and pay them $130,000 to keep their mouth shut.
Seth Meyers pointed out that Trump has spent $100 million or $230,589 a day on legal bills for his combined court cases.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the idea that Trump has failed to delay his trial despite multiple attempts when in fact he was able to delay it until April 24th. Secondly, Jimmy Kimmel's joke about having sex with everyone in court and paying them $130,000 is not only offensive but also implies that the judge would be bribed which is a clear violation of ethics.
The article states that Trump has failed to delay his trial despite multiple attempts when in fact he was able to delay it until April 24th. This statement is deceptive because it presents an incorrect narrative about the outcome of Trump's efforts to delay the trial.
Jimmy Kimmel's joke about having sex with everyone in court and paying them $130,000 implies that the judge would be bribed which is a clear violation of ethics. This statement is deceptive because it presents an offensive idea without any evidence to support it.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric and appeals to authority in a mocking tone towards former President Donald Trump's trial-delay efforts.
Jimmy Kimmel said on Thursday,
Bias
(85%)
The author uses humor to mock Trump's trial-delaying efforts. The examples provided are direct quotations from the article that clearly demonstrate this bias.
Jimmy Kimmel joked on Thursday.Credit...ABC April 12
On Late Night,
You know what they say: If at first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth you don’t succeed
