On Trump’s Guilty
Verdict
On the afternoon of Thursday, May 30, 2024, a New York jury
found former President of the United States of America Donald J. Trump guilty
on all 34 felony counts against him that were at issue in that trial. Trump is
guilty of falsifying business records for the purpose of illegally influencing
the 2016 presidential election. The legal issue in the case was a bit
convoluted. Under New York state law, falsification of business records without
more is a misdemeanor. That Trump did it in violation of election law made it a
felony. Trump, of course, has always insisted not only that he is innocent of
these charges but that the system is corrupt and “rigged” against him.
Immediately after the jury returned its verdict, Trump said that the case was “a
disgrace.” Was it? Let’s look at how that case came about to see if there is
any merit to that claim.
Trump insists that the United States Department of Justice
under President Biden is biased against him. The Manhattan District Attorney,
however, is a New York state official not a federal one. He has no direct
connection to the US Department of Justice nor is he responsible in any way to
the US Department of Justice. District Attorney Bragg brought this case against
Trump under New York state law not US federal law. There is no evidence that
the US Department of Justice was involved in this case in any way other than as
a source of documentary evidence. Any complaint Trump may have against the
Department of Justice has no bearing on this case.
The Manhattan DA presented the case to a grand jury of
ordinary citizens of Manhattan. That grand jury determined that there was
probable cause to believe that Trump had committed the crimes with which he was
charged. That indictment by the grand jury led to the trial that finished on
May 30, 2024. There is no evidence that there was anything unusual or out of
bounds in this process. The New York state legal system worked the way it is
meant to work, the way it works for and against every other criminal defendant.
The Manhattan DA brought the case to trial under the
indictment of the grand jury. Trump had legal counsel at all stages of the
trial from pretrial motions to the verdict. The case was assigned to a judge in
the ordinary way. If anything, the trial judge was more lenient with Trump than
he would have been with any other defendant when it came to Trump’s multiple violations
of so-called “gag orders” the court had issued. A jury of twelve jurors and
eight alternates was chosen from a large pool of ordinary citizens of
Manhattan. The presentation of evidence by both sides of the case proceeded as
the presentation of evidence always does in a criminal trial. There was nothing
extraordinary about it.
The jury returned its verdict. Its verdict makes Trump a
convicted felon, but it isn’t the end of the case. The trial judge has
scheduled sentencing for July 11, 2024. After sentencing and once a final
judgment is entered, Trump will have the same right of appeal as any convicted
criminal defendant would. There is no reason to believe that there will be
anything improper about the post-trial proceedings in this case.
In none of this is there any evidence that the charges
against Trump were brought in any way that violated New York state law. There
is no evidence that the judge conducted the trial in any way that violated New
York state law. Yet Trump continues to insist that the case against him was
unfair, unjust, a disgrace, and rigged. He insists that the judge was corrupt. I
can think of only one thing that could possibly be true that would case any
shadow of doubt on the fairness of this case.
Trump claims that the case was brought by Democrats for
political purposes. I would be surprised if either Manhattan DA Bragg or the
judge in this case ever voted for Trump, but I have no way of knowing how or
even if they voted in previous elections. For the sake of argument, though
there’s no evidence to support the assumption, let’s assume that the District
Attorney did bring the case for political reasons. Let’s assume that the DA and
the trial judge are both rabid anti-Trumpists. Would that being the case change
anything significant about the case?
It might mean that the DA brought a case he would not
otherwise have brought. Would that make a difference in the case? Trump could
claim selective prosecution, although that’s a defense that’s either very
difficult or impossible to prove. Moreover, it’s hard to see how this case could
be selective prosecution because it is unique in the annals of American
jurisprudence. No former president of the United States has ever been charged
with a felony before. As far as we know, no American president other than
Richard Nixon has ever committed a felony before. There is no one in this case
or any other case who has done what Trump did here and certainly no other possible
case in which the defendant would be a former American president.
But let’s say the Manhattan DA did bring the case against
Trump because he hates Trump. Would that change any of the facts of the case?
No, it would not. Would that change any of the law of the case? No, it would
not. Would that change any of the procedure in the case? No, it would not. Would
that change the jury instructions in the case? No, it would not. In fact, in
those instructions, if the judge made any mistake it was to overstress the
truth that the burden of proof was on the prosecution and that the defendant didn’t
have to prove or disprove anything. The judge repeated the phrase “beyond a
reasonable doubt” many times in his instructions, and he gave the jury a legal
definition of “reasonable” that, I assume, was consistent with New York state
law. Moreover, the DA did not try the case himself. Other attorneys of his
office did.
So, it seems clear to this outsider that there was nothing legally
improper about the case of New York v. Trump. Trump certainly will file an
appeal of the judgment against him, something he of course has every right to
do. I have no idea what appealable issues he will raise. I can’t imagine a New
York state appellate judge paying any attention to Trump’s unsupported claims
that the prosecution was unjust and the trial was rigged against him. Issues on
appeal are invariably legal issues not factual ones. When I was a lawyer I was
taught that in an appeal you first make the court want to rule in your favor,
then you give the court a legal hook to hang its decision on. I can’t imagine
why any appellate court would want to rule in Trump’s favor, but even if it did,
it would have to have a plausible legal basis for a decision in his favor. We’ll
just have to wait and see how Trump’s appeal in this case comes out, but there
is no reason to believe that the court will handle the appeal in any improper
way.
Today is a day that will appear in books on American history
for as long as anyone is studying American history. For the first time ever, a
former president of the United States has been found guilty felony crimes.[1]
All of those felonies relate to an attempt to keep relevant information from
the American public before an upcoming presidential election. They were all
part of a scheme by the presidential candidate of a major American political
party to subvert American democracy. I’ll admit that I hate Donald Trump and
the threat he poses to American democracy; but even if I didn’t hate Trump, the
facts and the law of this case would be what they are. At least some justice
has finally been done with regard to Donald Trump. It is an outrage that it has
taken this long for justice to be done. It is an outrage that none of the other
three criminal indictments he faces will come to trial before the November,
2024, presidential election, but there’s nothing to be done about that. Even
without convictions in those cases, former President of the United States of
America Donald J. Trump is now a convicted felon. Let all the people shout: At
last!
[1]
Richard Nixon certainly committed felonies while in office, but President Ford’s
pardon of Nixon meant that he was never tried for those felonies. Had he been,
the verdict against Trump would have been the second such verdict not the
first.
No comments:
Post a Comment