If you really believe that Trump's Manhattan criminal case represents "a flawed but functioning system that faithfully adheres to the rule of law," I have to assume you are (perhaps blissfully) ignorant of (among many other things) the details of the charges as presented to the jury in their instructions from the judge.
If you really believe that Trump's Manhattan criminal case represents "a flawed but functioning system that faithfully adheres to the rule of law," I have to assume you are (perhaps blissfully) ignorant of (among many other things) the details of the charges as presented to the jury in their instructions from the judge.
The "predicate crime" Trump was accused of intending to cover up -- without which "cover-up" allegation the whole case was nothing but an expired, non-prosecutable misdemeanor -- is New York Election Law § 17-152, itself a misdemeanor, which has never been charged against anyone at any time, as far as anybody knows.
One possible reason (and a good one) for the previous non-use of section 17-152 is that section 17-152 is unconstitutionally vague.
Section 17-152 states: "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." That's the whole section. Unlawful means is not defined -- in section 152 or elsewhere in the Election Law.
A criminal law is unconstitutionally vague (under the US Constitution) if it gives the average person no reasonable notice of the allegedly prohibited conduct. In section 152, "unlawful means" is not reasonable notice of anything. A law is also unconstitutionally vague if it is so vague that it invites arbitrary enforcement. That the first-ever use is against a political opponent in an election season is rather suggestive on this point.
This is just one of the more easily explained problems in the prosecution of Trump.
If you are correct, the case stands a good chance of being overturned. But if it isn't overturned, I'm confident you will say that it is just more proof that the corruption goes deeper than we thought. Would you accept the verdict if the Supreme Court refused to overturn the verdict? I doubt it.
The prosecutors should never have brought such a case. The judge should never have accepted it and required the defendant to respond. And at the close of trial, it should never have been presented to the jury for decision. Juries generally can only answer what they are asked, and only decide what is given to them to decide.
Ask any attorney who has paid close attention to the case (if she/he trusts you to preserve her/his anonymity and confidence) what they think.
The outward forms of "due process," "representation by counsel," "trial by jury," and so-called "rule of law" cannot cure the fundamental problems of the charges -- and of the case as a whole.
As to the Supreme Court, the Court itself selects which cases to review from among those laid before it. The Court, if petitioned in Trump's Manhattan case, could simply deny certiorari, declining to review the case. That would be a form of refusing to overturn. And it is the most common response to a petition for certiorari. But it would not mean the case has no problems.
Also, the Supreme Court is "supreme" because it is the last and final court, not because it is infallible, or unchanging, or anything of the sort.
The Grand Jury would have had no reason or opportunity to disagree with my opinion explained above.
Grand juries only address the sufficiency of evidence to bring charges. They have no role in determining the constitutionality or appropriateness of proposed charges on any other basis.
Moreover, a grand jury indictment is rather easy to obtain.
There are 23 jurors on a grand jury in New York.
The prosecutor presents the evidence *and* tells the jury what the law is.
The grand jury has no expertise in the requirements of Constitutional Due Process, and no basis or ability to judge the correctness of the prosecutor’s instructions on the law.
There is no judge present.
There is no other attorney present (except in rare circumstances).
No one speaks on behalf of the person(s) targeted.
The grand jury only decides whether there is “probable cause” (or in other words, whether there is “a reasonable basis for prosecution based on objective facts that the defendant likely committed a crime“), based on the law as explained by the prosecutor and the evidence as presented by the same.
Of the 23 grand jurors, only a bare majority (12/23) have to vote in favor to bring charges.
There is a reason Tom Wolfe, in Bonfire of the Vanities, could plausibly “quote” New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler as saying that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."
If it’s not overturned, we are all much more likely to be prosecuted and persecuted. However, many will be pleased as it provided legal election interference
If you really believe that Trump's Manhattan criminal case represents "a flawed but functioning system that faithfully adheres to the rule of law," I have to assume you are (perhaps blissfully) ignorant of (among many other things) the details of the charges as presented to the jury in their instructions from the judge.
The "predicate crime" Trump was accused of intending to cover up -- without which "cover-up" allegation the whole case was nothing but an expired, non-prosecutable misdemeanor -- is New York Election Law § 17-152, itself a misdemeanor, which has never been charged against anyone at any time, as far as anybody knows.
One possible reason (and a good one) for the previous non-use of section 17-152 is that section 17-152 is unconstitutionally vague.
Section 17-152 states: "Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." That's the whole section. Unlawful means is not defined -- in section 152 or elsewhere in the Election Law.
A criminal law is unconstitutionally vague (under the US Constitution) if it gives the average person no reasonable notice of the allegedly prohibited conduct. In section 152, "unlawful means" is not reasonable notice of anything. A law is also unconstitutionally vague if it is so vague that it invites arbitrary enforcement. That the first-ever use is against a political opponent in an election season is rather suggestive on this point.
This is just one of the more easily explained problems in the prosecution of Trump.
There many more.
If you are correct, the case stands a good chance of being overturned. But if it isn't overturned, I'm confident you will say that it is just more proof that the corruption goes deeper than we thought. Would you accept the verdict if the Supreme Court refused to overturn the verdict? I doubt it.
The real problem is not with the jury/verdict.
The prosecutors should never have brought such a case. The judge should never have accepted it and required the defendant to respond. And at the close of trial, it should never have been presented to the jury for decision. Juries generally can only answer what they are asked, and only decide what is given to them to decide.
Ask any attorney who has paid close attention to the case (if she/he trusts you to preserve her/his anonymity and confidence) what they think.
The outward forms of "due process," "representation by counsel," "trial by jury," and so-called "rule of law" cannot cure the fundamental problems of the charges -- and of the case as a whole.
As to the Supreme Court, the Court itself selects which cases to review from among those laid before it. The Court, if petitioned in Trump's Manhattan case, could simply deny certiorari, declining to review the case. That would be a form of refusing to overturn. And it is the most common response to a petition for certiorari. But it would not mean the case has no problems.
Also, the Supreme Court is "supreme" because it is the last and final court, not because it is infallible, or unchanging, or anything of the sort.
"The prosecutors should never have brought such a case."
The Grand Jury disagreed with your opinion on that matter.
The Grand Jury would have had no reason or opportunity to disagree with my opinion explained above.
Grand juries only address the sufficiency of evidence to bring charges. They have no role in determining the constitutionality or appropriateness of proposed charges on any other basis.
Moreover, a grand jury indictment is rather easy to obtain.
There are 23 jurors on a grand jury in New York.
The prosecutor presents the evidence *and* tells the jury what the law is.
The grand jury has no expertise in the requirements of Constitutional Due Process, and no basis or ability to judge the correctness of the prosecutor’s instructions on the law.
There is no judge present.
There is no other attorney present (except in rare circumstances).
No one speaks on behalf of the person(s) targeted.
The grand jury only decides whether there is “probable cause” (or in other words, whether there is “a reasonable basis for prosecution based on objective facts that the defendant likely committed a crime“), based on the law as explained by the prosecutor and the evidence as presented by the same.
Of the 23 grand jurors, only a bare majority (12/23) have to vote in favor to bring charges.
There is a reason Tom Wolfe, in Bonfire of the Vanities, could plausibly “quote” New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler as saying that "a grand jury would 'indict a ham sandwich,' if that's what you wanted."
If it’s not overturned, we are all much more likely to be prosecuted and persecuted. However, many will be pleased as it provided legal election interference