In a major legal twist, a federal judge has recused himself from a defamation case involving President-elect Donald Trump and the exonerated members of the “Central Park Five.” The move comes after Trump’s legal team raised concerns about the judge’s impartiality due to a personal connection with the plaintiffs’ attorney.
The recusal follows Trump’s decisive electoral win over Vice President Kamala Harris and marks a significant moment as his legal team works to resolve lingering legal battles. According to Bloomberg Law, Trump’s attorneys requested the “immediate recusal” of Senior Judge Michael Baylson, citing his long-standing friendship with Shanin Specter, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs.
Trump’s legal team, in their filing earlier this week, pointed to a November 13 disclosure by Specter that revealed his close ties to Judge Baylson.
In the disclosure, Specter admitted to a deeply personal relationship with the judge. “I have personally represented both Judge Baylson and his wife,” Specter wrote. “I have also known and enjoyed a friendship with Judge Baylson since I was a child. Both he and his wife have been guests in my home on various occasions, and I and my wife have been guests in their home on various occasions as well.”
Specter himself acknowledged the potential conflict of interest, stating, “We do not oppose the request” for recusal.
Trump’s lawyers argued that “a reasonable person would question the court’s impartiality” given the circumstances. They contended that any informed observer might “harbor doubts concerning impartiality,” especially considering the close personal and professional ties between the judge and Specter.
On Friday, Judge Baylson granted the request, stepping aside from the case to avoid any appearance of bias.
This recusal marks another chapter in the decades-long saga between Trump and the Central Park Five, who were wrongfully convicted for the 1989 rape and assault of jogger Trisha Meili in New York City’s Central Park.
At the time, Trump took out full-page ads in four major newspapers calling for the death penalty for those accused in the case. His ad, headlined “Bring Back the Death Penalty. Bring Back Our Police!”, fueled public outrage and amplified calls for harsh punishment.
However, in 2002, DNA evidence and a confession from Matias Reyes, the actual perpetrator, exonerated the five men—Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Yusef Salaam, Raymond Santana, and Korey Wise. They later received a $41 million settlement from New York City in 2014.
Despite their exoneration, Trump has repeatedly refused to apologize for his role in stoking public outrage, even maintaining during his 2016 presidential campaign that the group was likely guilty.
The current defamation lawsuit stems from Trump’s repeated comments disparaging the exonerated men, accusing them of wrongdoing despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The recusal has sparked mixed reactions. Critics argue that Trump’s request for recusal was a tactical move to delay or derail the case. Legal experts, however, note that the judge’s close personal ties to the plaintiffs’ attorney could reasonably call his impartiality into question.
“The judicial system hinges on the perception of fairness and impartiality,” said legal analyst Marisa Andrews. “In cases as high-profile as this, even the appearance of bias can undermine public confidence in the outcome.”
Trump’s legal team sees the recusal as a victory, positioning the president-elect as someone committed to ensuring fairness in legal proceedings.
For the Central Park Five, however, the legal battle is far from over. They continue to seek justice and accountability for the harm they endured.
This case is just one of many legal challenges facing Trump as he prepares to assume the presidency again. His legal team is working aggressively to address outstanding issues, ranging from civil suits to investigations into his business dealings.
For now, the recusal signals a reset in the Central Park Five defamation case, with a new judge expected to take over. The development ensures that Trump’s contentious history with the case will remain in the spotlight, raising questions about justice, accountability, and the power of public figures to shape narratives.
The road ahead promises further legal fireworks as Trump’s team battles to protect his reputation and defend against the mounting legal claims tied to his controversial past.
5 Comments
A reasonable person would conclude that the author is anti-Trump. The bias is clear in the statements she makes. If this is opinion journalism I understand but I’m not certain of that.
UnFuckingConstitutional!
Huh?
UnFuckin’Constitutional!
Interesting that the JUDGE did NOT throw the case out on its lack of cause. A personal opinion that someone was likely guilty is not an actionable cause. Neither is a one page add demanding that justice be reviewed and the laws be changed to be harsher.
At NO time does it sound like Trump attempted to cause innocent people to become victims of a prosecutor. hell, they received 41M in damagers and their records are clean. It does not buy back your life but it is better then a “We’re sorry”.