陳禹成（美國華府）
34 項偽造商業記錄的重罪判處 “無條件釋放”？
2025.1.10，紐約法官對當選總統唐納德·川普 34 項偽造商業記錄的重罪判處“無條件釋放”。該判決免除了他的處罰，但維持了定罪。在宣判時，當選總統再次表示此案是出於政治動機。（https://www.voanews.com/a/donald-trump-sentenced-without-penalties-in-new-york-court/7932512.html）
這是2025.1.9下午，在川普被美國聯邦最高法院以極簡短兩理由，駁回他的緊急上訴以後，紐約州法院開庭結果。
（原文参見附錄）首先，候任總統川普在紐約州法院審判中涉嫌明顯違規的問題可以透過上訴的普通程序來解決。 其次，鑑於初審法院在簡短的虛擬聽證會後表示打算判處「無條件釋放」的判決，因此判決對當選總統的責任造成的負擔相對較小。
First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a brief virtual hearing.
總統職位所提供的保護並不是減輕處罰的因素
以下是2025年1月9日紐約州第一審法院法官給預定於2025年1月25日再度就任美國總統的（目前是平民的）川普，有罪判決，但決定不讓入獄服刑理由的陳述。
需要明確的是，總統職位所提供的保護並不是減輕處罰的因素。 它們不會減輕犯罪的嚴重性，也不會以任何方式為其犯罪行為辯護。 然而，這些保護是一項法律規定，根據法治，本法院必須尊重和遵守。
To be clear, the protections afforded the office of the president are not a mitigating factor. They do not reduce the seriousness of the crime or justify its commission in any way. The protections are, however, a legal mandate which, pursuant to the rule of law, this court must respect and follow.
https://youtube.com/shorts/rXboWVnfviY?si=A6NiXsTsr8dfyk0k
Enduring Damage 永遠的傷害
而，當檢察官在庭上控訴（川普在本案對美國司法制度造成）持久的傷害時，法官的回應（https://youtu.be/picyFpjxvYY?si=xKmzZ3qbJzpnlD3l）：本法庭從未遇過如此獨特和非凡的情況。 確實，可以說，這確實是一個非同尋常的案例。
媒體的關注、公眾的關注以及各相關機構的高度安全措施都前所未有，但這次審判卻有點自相矛盾，因為一旦法庭大門關閉，審判進行的本身並不比其他 32個在同一時間在本院進行的刑事審判，有任何更特殊、獨特或非同尋常的情形。
同樣的舉證責任，由公民組成的陪審團作出裁決，都是依照程序規則、在法律指導下進行的。
因此，儘管人們可以說審判本身在很多方面都有些平常，但圍繞這次判決的情況卻不能這麼說，這是因為你曾經擔任過的職務，並且很快就會再次擔任的這個職務。
可以肯定的是，美國總統辦公室所受到的法律保護是非凡的，而此法律保護的並不是該辦公室的主人。
儘管這些保護範圍非常廣泛，但它們不提供的一項權力是撤銷陪審團裁決的權力。
從過去法律先例中可以清楚地看出，直到（2024年美國聯邦最高法院作出總統豁免範圍的） 7 月 1 日為止，法律先例還很少可以引用，唐納德·特朗普，一個普通美國公民，唐納德·川普，作為刑事被告，並無權獲得如此大的保護。
本法院裁定，允許在不侵犯美國最高職位的情況下，作出定罪判決的唯一合法判決，就是無條件釋放。
因此，此時此刻，我對你被定罪的所有 34 項罪名，判處該刑罰，先生，祝您在第二任期內一切順利。 謝謝。
Never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances. Indeed, it can be viewed fairly that this has been a truly extraordinary case.
There was unprecedented media attention, public interest and heightened security involving various agencies, and yet the trial was a bit of a paradox because once the courtroom doors were closed, the trial itself was no more special, unique, or extraordinary than the other 32 criminal trials that took place in this courthouse at the same exact time.
The same burden of proof was applied and a jury made up of ordinary citizens delivered a verdict, and it was all conducted pursuant to the rules of procedure and guided by the law.
So while one can argue that the trial itself was in many respects, somewhat ordinary, the same cannot be said about the circumstances surrounding this sentencing, and that is because of the office you once occupied and which you will soon occupy again.
To be sure, it is the legal protections afforded to the Office of the President of the United States that are extraordinary – not the occupant of the office.
Despite the extraordinary breadth of those protections, one power they do not provide is the power to erase a jury verdict.
It is clear from legal precedent, which, until July 1st was scarce, that Donald Trump, the ordinary citizen, Donald Trump, the criminal defendant, would not be entitled to such considerable protections.
This court has determined that the only lawful sentence that permits entry of a judgment of conviction without encroaching upon the highest office in the land is an unconditional discharge.
Therefore, at this time I impose that sentence to cover all 34 counts, sir, I wish you Godspeed as you assume your second term in office. Thank you.
刑事定罪等於政治迫害？
Criminal conviction equals political witch hunt?
就紐約州法院的判決，川普已經是一個定罪的平民，不需入獄是因為這個罪犯即將於2025年1月20日宣誓就任美國第47任總統。事實上，川普案例確定了台灣民主運動史上，民進黨赢得政權的神主牌 --- 當選過關 落選被關。
「只有民主 没有法治」的台灣 下一步呢？
控訴行政當局「以司法手段進行政治迫害」的台灣民主運動，最終的目的，不就是像川普競選總統的宣傳口號，即使被判有罪，也要讓台灣千秋萬世？（Make Taiwan Great Forever!）
附錄：
THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2025
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
24A666 TRUMP, DONALD J. V. NEW YORK, ET AL.
The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a brief virtual hearing.
Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.