Commenting has been turned off for this post
⭠ Return to thread
Matt Mullen's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Joachim2's avatar

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.

Expand full comment
Matt Mullen's avatar

"The prosecutors should never have brought such a case."

The Grand Jury disagreed with your opinion on that matter.

Expand full comment
Joachim2's avatar

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."

Expand full comment
H Hildebrand's avatar

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

Expand full comment