Leftist District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s show trial has culminated in the Democrat Party achieving their goal: A felony conviction against Donald Trump, their most reviled political rival.
The prosecution and trial were fraught with legal complications and “reversible error” that experts believe will make Trump’s impending appeal very strong.
Even though it is both historical and stunning, it is not surprising to those familiar with left-wing legal battles in recent times. After two days of deliberation, 12 Manhattan jurors found Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts against him. Judge Juan Merchan has set sentencing for July 11, just four days before the Republican National Convention begins in Milwaukee, where the GOP is expected to nominate Trump as their presidential candidate. He will face President Joe Biden in a rematch of the contentious 2020 election. Trump also faces the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison, depending on the level of vindictiveness from the New York judicial system, which has already shown considerable hostility.
The appeal process is expected to delay any sentencing, likely until after the election. As it stands, there is nothing preventing Trump from continuing his third presidential campaign, despite the felony conviction heralded by his incumbent opponent.
‘One of the Craziest Things’
Constitutional law expert Hans von Spakovsky believes the conviction will not hold due to several reasons. Chief among them is Merchan’s complicated jury instructions, where the Biden-campaign-donor judge framed the jury’s deliberations in a way that, according to legal expert Jonathan Turley, “seemed less like a jury deliberation than a canned hunt.” Merchan told jurors they didn’t need to agree on the three possible “unlawful means” prosecutors generally alleged Trump used to influence the 2016 election.
“The jurors were told that they could split on what occurred, with four jurors accepting each of the three possible crimes in a 4-4-4 split. The court would still consider that a unanimous verdict so long as they agree that it was in furtherance of some crime,” Turley wrote in the Hill before the verdict was announced.
Media outlets allied with Biden — and attempting to influence the 2024 election — wailed collectively that conservative news sources had misrepresented Merchan’s jury instructions. However, the unusual nature of the judge’s explanations in a legally flawed trial is undeniable.
Von Spakovsky said Merchan’s instructions suggest reversible error — “an error in trial proceedings that affects a party’s rights so significantly that it is grounds for reversal if the affected party properly objected at trial,” according to the Legal Information Institute.
“This is such a mistake. … If I were the court of appeals, the moment this case came in, I would overturn the conviction,” the former Federal Election Commission member and Heritage Foundation fellow said before the verdict on the Simon Conway Show. “That is one of the craziest things I have ever heard and it is a complete violation of President Trump’s substantive due process rights.”
Von Spakovsky stated that in similar cases, the standard is for jurors to reach a unanimous agreement on each charge. He added that Merchan introduced an absurd twist to the proceedings, further disadvantaging Trump’s defense throughout the trial.
Threw the Constitution ‘Out the Window’
Defense attorney Randy Zelin told CNN that Merchan’s jury instructions had a “key flaw.”
“Whether you are driving in a Ford or a Ferrari, if someone gives you bad directions, you’re going to end up lost. And those jury instructions were just a complete, just take the Constitution, throw it out a window, burn it, shoot it and hang it,” the attorney said on “CNN Special Report.”
Turley told Fox News that the “trial is a target rich environment for appeal,” although the appeal process is likely to extend beyond the election.
Speaker Mike Johnson urged the U.S. Supreme Court to quickly take up the case due to its unprecedented constitutional implications. The state appeals courts likely to oversee the Trump case are filled with Democrat-appointed judges.
Von Spakovsky believes the courts should act as swiftly as the Supreme Court did in the Colorado ballot access case, where it unanimously overturned the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that removed Trump from the state presidential primary ballot.
As for Merchan, Von Spakovsky said the judge is either extremely incompetent or his peculiar instructions to the jury were “a sign of intentional misfeasance.”
“I actually believe it’s the latter because throughout this entire case he has acted as if he is an alternate member of the prosecution team,” the legal expert commented.
