NEW YORK (NEWSnetAP) — Juan Manuel Merchan, the judge in Donald Trump's hush-money criminal case, has rejected Trump's demand to step aside, denying defense claims that he's biased because he has given cash to Democrats and his daughter is a party consultant.

In a ruling Aug. 11,  Merchan acknowledged he made several small donations to Democratic causes during the 2020 campaign, including $15 to Trump's Democratic rival Joe Biden, but said he is certain of his “ability to be fair and impartial."

Removing himself from the case “would not be in the public interest," Merchan wrote.

The decision on recusal was entirely up to Merchan. He previously rejected a similar request when Trump’s company, The Trump Organization, was on trial in 2022 for tax fraud.

Trump lawyer Susan Necheles declined comment. The Manhattan district attorney's office, which is prosecuting the case and said in court papers it wants Merchan to remain on the case, also declined comment.

The hush-money trial is scheduled to start March 25, 2024, overlapping with the presidential primary season. In July, a federal judge denied Trump's request to move the case out of Merchan's state courtroom and into federal court. 

In April, Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. The charges relate to hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign to bury allegations he had extramarital sexual encounters. He has denied wrongdoing.

Trump’s lawyers want Merchan off the case in part because his daughter, Loren, is a political consultant whose firm has worked for some of Trump’s rivals and because, they contend, he acted inappropriately by involving himself in plea negotiations for Trump’s longtime finance chief, Allen Weisselberg. Merchan said he rejected that argument when asked to exit the Trump Organization case.

Trump's lawyers also raised concerns about the political donations, asking Merchan to explain three contributions totaling $35 that were made to Democratic causes in his name during the 2020 election cycle. Merchan, in his ruling, said the “donations at issue are self-evident and require no further clarification” and pointed to the ethics panel’s conclusion that such small-dollar contributions wouldn't require recusal.

“These modest political contributions made more than two years ago cannot reasonably create an impression of bias or favoritism in the case before the judge,” the panel wrote.

Copyright 2023 NEWSnet and The Associated Press. All rights reserved.