Below is my column in The Hill on the ongoing deliberations in the Trump trial. The instructions in the case raised concerns that the deliberations could become a legal version of a canned hunt, where the prey is trapped in a cage or fenced in areas to be dispatched. Elements of the instructions are disturbing in reducing what is required to convict the former president.
Here is the column:
Today the jury began its deliberations in the trial of former president Donald Trump. Before jurors left, however, Judge Juan Merchan framed their deliberations in a way that seemed less like a jury deliberation than a canned hunt.
For many of us, the Trump trial has seemed otherworldly, a vaguely familiar proceeding where common elements of a trial seem to have been flipped.
Even before the jury instructions, the trial was controversial for both liberal and conservative commentators. At the start of closing arguments, most honest observers were still wondering what the prosecutors were alleging as to the crime that Trump was allegedly concealing with the falsification of business records.
Then came the closing arguments. Around the country, it is standard for the government to go first with a closing to allow the defense to respond. The government is then given the privilege of a rebuttal after the defense rests. In New York, the defense must go first, giving the government free rein over its closing with no risk of contradiction from the defense. With the exception of objections, any abusive or improper arguments are left to the judge to address.
In the case of Judge Merchan, that protection was all but absent as the prosecution engaged in flagrant violations from offering testimony on unestablished facts to directly contradicting prior instructions. In one of the most egregious moments, Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told the jury that it is an established fact that former Trump counsel Michael Cohen committed a federal election law violation on the direct orders of Donald Trump. Merchan had repeatedly said that Cohen’s earlier plea could not be used to imply the guilt of Trump. Merchan overruled an objection and Steinglass proceeded, as he did earlier in trial, to repeat the false statement.
Merchan did nothing as Steinglass told the jury that Hope Hicks cried in court because she knew that she had destroyed Trump’s defense (Hicks has never explained why she cried). Merchan did nothing as Steinglass falsely told the jury that the media and political campaigns do not do what Trump did in seeking to kill and plant stories. (This ignored, for example, that the Clinton campaign did precisely that repeatedly in the very same election, including with the false Russian collusion allegations).
It was only when Steinglass repeatedly instructed the jury on the law that Merchan finally sustained objections, at the end of his closing arguments.
So going into the deliberations, the court allowed the jury to be told repeatedly that there were federal campaign violations committed by Trump. That is not true. Putting aside that the federal government found no basis to impose a civil fine, let alone bring a criminal charge, the court barred a legal expert who could have shown that no such violation occurred. The jury does not know that. Instead, the judge allowed them to be repeatedly told a false fact that could make it difficult for anyone to acquit.
However, the instructions then went in for the kill and turned the jury deliberations into a canned hunt.
Consider just a few highlights from the curious aspects of these deliberations.
First, the judge has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what actually occurred in the case. Merchan ruled that the government had vaguely referenced three possible crimes that constitute the “unlawful means” used to influence the election: a federal election violation, the falsification of business records, and a tax violation. 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.
Second, the judge said that he would instruct the jury on the law but then omitted the key elements that established there was no federal campaign violation. Indeed, the blocked legal expert, Brad Smith, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission, was going to testify that this could not have been a federal election violation. Moreover, even if Trump’s legal settlement money could be viewed as a federal campaign contribution, it could not have been part of a conspiracy to influence the election since any reporting of a contribution would have had to occur after the election.
Third, not only can the jury disagree as to what occurred, but one of the three crimes is so circular as to produce vertigo in the jury room. The prosecutors zapped a dead misdemeanor back into life by claiming a violation under New York’s election law 17-152. The argument is that the crime was committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, that other crime can be the falsification of business records. So the jury (or some jurors, at least) could find that some documents were falsified as an unlawful means of falsifying other documents.
Finally, Merchan is allowing conviction based on a “general intent” to defraud “any person or entity,” a dangerously vague concept in this novel criminal case. Merchan has largely stuck to the standard jury instructions but this case is anything but standard. With an ambiguous claim of “influencing” an election, a general intent instruction without better definition to this case can be an invitation for bias.
Given the instructions and the errors in this trial, it would seem that an acquittal is almost beyond the realm of possibility. That leaves either a hung jury or a conviction. However, the framing of this case and failure to protect the rights of the defendant have undermined the perceived legitimacy of the proceedings and any possible verdict.
With Trump in a tight cage, Merchan just left it for the jury to deliver the coup de grace. We will see. I remain hopeful that a couple jurors will balk at this manufactured criminal theory. Canned hunts are great for trophies, not so much for trials.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
I suggest this. Divest from New York.
torrancestephensphd.substack.com
GLORY Hallelujah!
The Revolution has begun.
GREATEST DAY IN AMERICA DAY
The path to our Second Revolution is set. We will finally create the revolutionary changes in America which will ensure injustice of this type can never happen again.
We will finally prosecute Clinton for aiding and abbeting the enemies responsible for the Holocaust
In another somewhat related matter the Supreme court in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor Reversed lower courts efforts to Bar the NRA from suing the NY DFS for its efforts to use its powers to suppress the free speech rights of the NRA.
We have heard innumerable left wing nuts claiming repeatedly that it is a free speech right to supress the speech of others – it is not.
And when the government does so it is unconstitutional.
We have not yet heard the decisions on the Social Media free speech cases – but this strongly suggests that SCOTUS is not going to interfere with the findings or injunctions of lower courts regarding the Biden administrations pattern of strong arming social media to silence views they did not like.
It would be very hard to reconcile a unanimous decision on this case with any other outcome.
“Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries,” Sotomayor wrote in the high court’s opinion Thursday.
Sotomayor left an innocent man in prison for years because his lawyer was a day late filing a motion
With respect to those of you on the left salivating over what you may be able to do to “control” Trump between now and the election.
Let me suggest that While I am not clear about what the effect of this verdict are, anything that you do that gives Trump and his supporters more ability to accuse you of interfering in the election will cost you dearly.
I will argue here why the gag order must now DIE, Why you can not jail Trump, why you can not legally use this to control Trump in anyway.
And you can froth at the mouth and claim I am wrong – and you might even get away with doing some or all of those things for a while.
But Those WILL BACKFIRE.
Gagging Trump has backfired on you for many reasons – not the least of which is that silencing the truth makes people desparate to hear it.
No message is more appealing than – “I am not allowed to tell you”
I hope you are stupid enough to continue to Gag Trump.
I hope that you are stupid enough to jail Trump.
I hope you are stupid enough to fail to understand that you are making a martyr out of Trump and that is not likely to work out all that well.
There is one and only one thing that is a serious potential problem for Trump. And that is if Some vilence somehow attributable top Trump and Trump supporters comes from this.
The ONE thing the left has been successful at in the past 8 years is constraining protestors on the right to far more restrictive standards than those on the left.
It has taken 4 years to overcome the lefts narative on J6 – but it is pretty close to dead right now.
But if Trump supporters violently storm the lower manhattan courthouse that will be featured by the left 24×7 for the next 6 months.
Mostly those on the right seem to grasp this. They are aware that the Biden administration is violently hostile to them and that they could be SWATTED for saying the wrong thing.
I do not beleive that the Deadly force authorization on the MAL warrantr was “SOP” I also do not beleive it was an attempt to assassinate Trump.
But I do beleive that there was the HOPE that it MIGHT result in violence.
Thye same HOPE exists with EVERY& SWATT raid conducted againts various people on the right.
The DOJ wants to trigger violence from the right. Since J6 there has been NONE – not that there has not been plenty of justification.
Regardless, DOJ wants a shootout between anyone on the Right and the FBI.
If they get that – it is likely the election is over.
Left wing violence gets excused.
Found guilty on all 34 counts. Way too perfect a score. This is what Soviet elections looked like.
Out of twelve jurors, they couldn’t find one decent soul. Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah. God will have his own verdict.
Diogenes:
“Out of twelve jurors, they couldn’t find one decent soul. Sounds like Sodom and Gomorrah. God will have his own verdict.”
*************************
Bamboozled jury more like it. Judge had his thumb on the scale and it showed. As for decent folks, you above all people know how hard that commodity is to find amid the soundrels, fools and rascals.
Mespo, the judge was ol’ scratch, himself. No doubt about it.
Keep the lamp lite, until you walk up to Donald Trump. He will tell you the truth of what he believes.
Even the juror who said he got all of his news from Truth Social voted to convict. Because that’s what the evidence supported. How shameful that you can’t believe that someone would have a different opinion than you yet still have a decent soul.
Voted to convict based on bad instructions. Jurors often change their minds (after the trial)when they realize how much information they were denied during trial. These people might feel that way, too. Plus, if 4-4-4 can be considered “unanimous” there’s no way to know that “even the guy who got all his news from Truthsocial” voted against Trump. In fact, no conclusions can be drawn at all considering those incredible jury instructions.
34 of 34.
Absolute corruption.
Although the Alvin Fagg-Juan “The Con” Merchan remake of the Banana Republic trial was filled with delicious legal-like procedural nonsense and hilarious parodies of fake-law, I still prefer Woody Allen’s original Bananas.
I am done with fake America admiral – mullins pure ly patience is over – lajes 86 . 545499a. Do it lest we the people be no m0re.
This is the Harvey Weinstein decison which came down from NY’s highest court right in the middle of this trial and should have resulted in an immediate mistrial.
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/court-of-appeals/2024/24.html
“The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Appellate Division, holding that the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes because that testimony served no material non-propensity purpose. The court also held that the trial court erred when it ruled that Weinstein, who had no criminal history, could be cross-examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed Weinstein in a highly prejudicial light. The court concluded that these errors were not harmless and ordered a new trial.”
The Ruling above addresses Multiple MAJOR problems in the Trump Trial.
The first is that Merchan was required to grant a mistrial the moment that Daniels started to allege the sex was less than consensual.
The next is that the sex claim itself was not admissible. The Truth or falsity of Daniels claim has NOTHING at all to do with the crimes charged.
The next is this goes was beyond Daniels testimony.
No testimony regarding Tax Fraud, Election Fraud or pretty much anything other than the 34 counts charged was admissible PERIOD.
Which also means the entire case had to be dismissed from the start.
Bragg can not go to court charging fellony records violations without also charging an underlying Fraud.
No such Fraud was charged. Evidence related to uncharged crimes is not admissible.
We know that bo know underlying crime was brought up. Trump was eeny meeny miney mowed. And convicted by a clowns court.
just drop out trump make everything go away so biden can ruin the country they get what they deserve
I wonder if the Democrats have just made much of the country ready to vote for the scary guy that they like to pretend Trump is.
In the below NEW YORK case – which SCOTUS reversed in 2023 less than a year ago,
The court Rejected broad theories of Fraud and asserted that
“fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests. ”
the 2023 Case was a Federal 2nd Circuit (New York) case
Ciminelli v. United States, 598 U.S. ___ (2023)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/598/21-1170/
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.
The 2000 Case was a Lousiana case based on Lousiana Law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/12/
Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000)
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
I would be happy to hear arguments from anyone explaining Why this does not DIRECTLY apply to the Trump case.
It may require a federal court, it may even require the supreme court to reverse this.
But Judge Merchan’s Jury instruction regarding Fraud was UNCONSTITUTIONAL as determined by US Supreme court precedent applying to Both State and Federal law with respect to Fraud claims that are Far Closer to tangible property interests than in the Bragg case.
This ALONE will result in reversal. I would note that the LA and 2nd Circuit cases have another similarity to the Trump case – in that they were attempts to criminalize the conduct of opposition politicians.
The supreme court has had a VERY STRONG record in the past several decades of unanimously obliterating politicized prosecutions.
Such as the MacDonald Case is Virginia. Cases that were upheld by lower state and federal courts.
The Supreme court has been TRYING to send a message to prosecutors and lower courts for a LONG TIME
To quit weaponizing the law for political purposes.
Those on the left have yet to take heed.
Like I said, Trump still has not been *validly* convicted. All convictions were invalid and thus legal nullities. That is the truth at the current time even if it takes a couple months for that truth to be declared by a higher court.
There is a small possibility that Trump can appeal directly to the Federal courts because Merchan including in this case allegations of Federal crimes for which he has no jurisdiction, were not charged, for which there is no federal charge or indictment much less conviction.
It is POSSIBLE that the 2nd circuit MIGHT take the case quickly and with a decent judge might vacate Merchan’s conviction and tell Merchan that he can retry the case without any unconvicted federal criminal allegations.
I beleive that is the ONLY chance of a quick reversal on this.
It is a near certainty that the first level of NY state appeals courts is going to take a long long long time to hear this and is going to do nothing.
There is a near zero chance that this is reversed before the election.
At the same time there is a 100% chance this is reversed after the election.
If Trump is elected – it likely will have to go to the US supreme court to get reversed – because the lawfare must continue.
If Trump is not elected – whatever appealate court currently has the case will pitch it immediately.
John Say,
“There is a small possibility that Trump can appeal directly to the Federal courts because Merchan including in this case allegations of Federal crimes for which he has no jurisdiction, were not charged, for which there is no federal charge or indictment much less conviction.”
NO.
Because Trump was not charged for violating federal law. He can’t appeal to federal courts when he wasn’t charged or convicted under federal statutes. Merchan can mention federal crimes as a consideration. You don’t need jurisdiction to mention federal crimes. If Merchan sought to try Trump for federal crimes then he absolutely would not have jurisdiction.
All these hopes of a quick reversal are simply wishful thinking. Trump will not get a quick reversal on appeal. He will very likely remain a convicted felon well into the election. Possibly serve jail time before the election.
“Because Trump was not charged for violating federal law.”
Correct therefore allegations regarding violations of federal law can not be introduced as evidence in the case.
“He can’t appeal to federal courts when he wasn’t charged or convicted under federal statutes.”
“Merchan can mention federal crimes as a consideration. ”
Nope.
Are you really this daft ?
There are very very very narrow circumstances under which uncharged crimes are admissible.
And even then they can not be admitted for the FACT of the crime – which is EXACTLY how they were used here –
Merchan SPECIFICALLY directed that the Jury can conclude Trump committed Fraud based on THE FACT of a Tax Violation or the FACT of a FECA violation.
“You don’t need jurisdiction to mention federal crimes.”
You DO and Merchan did far more than mention them, he directed the jury that those crimes could be considered as an element to the crimes he was charged with.
” If Merchan sought to try Trump for federal crimes then he absolutely would not have jurisdiction.”
Merchan cited finding that Trump had committed 2 federal crimes as the basis for finding that he had violated a state crime (also indmissible because THAT was not charged).
I know that you are clueless but the prosecutions “theory of the case” is a complete and total disaster that is LITTERALLY impossible.,
Lets start with the Business fraud claim – ignoring the fact that there is litterally no fraud in catagorizing payments for an NDA as legal expenses, Reimbursement or retainer, regardless the escallation for a felony and the elimiation of the statute of limitations REQUIRES that they are to cover up another crime.
As MErchan and Brag has claimed the other crime is violating NY 17-152 which Trump was NOT charged with and therefore can not be tried for. But lets magically get past that problem. 17-152 bars influencing an election by illegal means.
You can ONLY influence an election BEFORE the election. I presume that you accept that time travel is not possible – atleast today.
Yet Every “{Unlawful means” that the Jury was instructed to consider – violations of Federal Election law, state tax law, or federal tax law – none of these were actually charged – but they are REQUIRED ELEMENTS of the 17-152 uncharged crime which is a required element of the records fraud crime.
Each of these – the alleged FECA violation the alleged federal and state Tax violations all occured AFTER the election.
So exactly how did a violotaion of any of these things that did not occur until after the election (and did not actually occur), influence the 2016 election ?
We are left with TIME TRAVEL.
“All these hopes of a quick reversal are simply wishful thinking.”
That part I will likely agree with you.
While I beleive that Trump has an excellent shot at appeal to BOTH state and Federal courts immediately.
The NY court of appeals is going to delay this forever.
You left wing nuts were claiming that courts going slow was election interferance – isn’t it STILL election interferance now that Trump is served by proceding rapidly ?
I do beleive that the Federal courts will accept Trump’s appeal – but even a normal but fast federal appeal is not likely to occur before the election.
Though What I have argued is Trump’s best bet for a FAST reversal. The issue is Simple – State courts have no jurisdiction over federal law. You have accepted that as True – but whether you like it or Not Merchan instructed the jury that finding 1 of three crimes – 2 of which were Federal Crimes was a required element to the 17-152 finding which was a required element to the business records crime.
Perhaps you have heard of the WWII operation “a bridge too far”
There is also an issue with Merchans – pick one, any one of three, and you need not agree – that formulation has already been shot down by federal courts as unconstitutional a decade ago.
And need I remind you AGAIN – UNCONSTITUTIONAL – that means all FEDERAL and STATE law (or in this case jury instructions, and elements of a crime) that shares the same flaw as any state or federal law found unconstitutional is ALSO unconstitutional.
Your ignorant claim of – the State of New York can act unconstitutionally,. but the federal government can not is FALSE.
“Trump will not get a quick reversal on appeal. He will very likely remain a convicted felon well into the election. Possibly serve jail time before the election.”
On this you are likely correct,
While I do beleive the federal courts are going to accept an appeal, Trump would still have to draw a favorable Federal Judge to get the case considered quickly. He will get a reversal on the grounds I cited from the federal courts eventually – if he does not get a reversal in the state court process, but timing in the appellate process is indeterminate. It is extremely common for appealate courts to sit on winning appeals issues for years – in order to punish defendants that they KNOW they must let off.
As I said Trump will with near certainty get a federal appeal accepted. But absent a motivated Federal Judge it is near certain that whoever gets the case will deliberately try to delay until the state appeal eventually gets the case reversed.
Judges rarely want to make controversial decisions – even when they are the right decision.
“He will very likely remain a convicted felon well into the election. Possibly serve jail time before the election.”
You do understand George that you are confessing that this is deliberate election interferance ?
I would also suggest to you that – it is likely that a huge portion of people may view it as election interferance.
You did NOT say the case will not be reversed. BTW All these NY cases will be reversed, it will just likely take years.
The EnMoron case fails for the same reason this case fails – This amormphous definition of Fraud where there is not even the potential for actual tangible harm to anyone.
The Appealate cort reduction of Trump’s bond was an implicit acceptance of the FACT that he is likely to prevail on appeal
“He can’t appeal to federal courts when he wasn’t charged or convicted under federal statutes. Merchan can mention federal crimes as a consideration.” The federal statutes on campaign financing were used as a basis for finding guilt on the bookeeping charge. Without a belief that the secondary crime was being committed or planned, the bookeeping crime would have remained a misdemeanor, and a time-barred misdemeanor at that. So, Merchan did not merely “mention” the federal crime in passing, he was telling the jury they could find that it had been committed. Merchan was sub silencio enforcing the federal crime even though no explicit verdict or finding was being rendered on it. At the very, like a judge in any good dictatorship, he created confusion as to what Trump was being found guilty of.
The relevant issue is NOT what you or I or anyone paying attention decides.
It is what the public – particularly independents currently voting For Trump decide.
That is somewhat hard to predict.
That said – despite many hoping against hope otherwise this was the expected outcome.
That likely means it is ALREADY reflected in the polls.
But I could be wrong.
We shall see.
It is also possible that large numbers of people will see this for what it is – Election fraud.
I would stress that with respect to those on the left.
They have just secured a felony conviction against Trump for legal acts by calling them election fraud.
That is a trivially repeatable game.
Arguably State AG’s in Red States could Charge Bragg and Merchan with election fraud.
It is pretty trivial to argue the purpose of this case was to influence voters in all 50 states.
The charges and proceedings and transcripts were published publicly and available to voters in every state.
There is zero doubt as an example that Merchan’s jury instructions are themselves Fraudulent.
My point – which the left wing nuts do not seem to get – is that “turn about is fair play”.
We need to END this weaponized lawfare – not continue it.
But there will be no end until those who have engaged in it are on the receiving end.
John Say,
“They have just secured a felony conviction against Trump for legal acts by calling them election fraud.”
Huh, no. They secured a felony conviction against Trump for illegal acts. A clearly defined crime under NY law.
Hoping red state governors will pursue prosecution of Bragg and Merchan is astronomically ridiculous and stupid not to mention grossly unconstitutional.
“My point – which the left wing nuts do not seem to get – is that “turn about is fair play”.
Oh they get it all right. The need for vengeance and retribution for committing the offense of upholding the law and holding accountable those who break it must suffer the same treatment because…it’s their turn. Seriously. It’s a stupid reason. The right can’t handle the idea of being held accountable.
Oldmanfromkansas,
Trump has validly been convicted. A jury found him guilty of all charges. That’s literally validating the charges against him.
George – I have already pointed out that the conviction was based on an UNCONSTITUTIONAL defintion of Fraud, that is the DEFINITION of Invalid.
As I have noted before there are over 1000 people on the innocence projects “exhonerated” list. These are people who were also convicted by judges and juries. The majority of these people confessed. Yet, each and every one of them was subsequently PROVEN innocent – not got off on a legal technicality – that happens atleast 1000 times a year.
So are you going to claim that ANY of the people on the exhonerated list were VALIDLY convicted ?
You are likely correct – the appeals for Trump’s cases will take years. But it is 100% certain that every single one of them will be reversed – they are ALL that “invalid”.
All you are succeeding is doing is PROVING that you are happy to engage in election fraud AGAIN.
We see in the coming days and weeks how this effects people.
It is pretty clear how it will effect the far left as well as most Trump supporters.
It is NOT at all clear how it will effect the rest of the country.
It is not clear how it will effect them in the short run.
It is not clear how it will effect them in the long run.
Look you can absolutely claim this will flip some votes to Biden – and it absolutely will.
I can claim it will flip some votes to Trump- – and it absolutely will.
What we do NOT know is how many will go what direction – in either the short or the long run.
But lets ASSUME that you are correct – that this throws the election to Biden – I would note that if that happens it is near certaint hat all of these cases will either be dropped or reversed probably quickly – because all of them are about interfering in the election – as you are openly admitting.
This is entirely about labeling Trump a convicted Felon – through the election – after does not matter.
But you are not honest enough to admit to yourself that is ELECTION FRAUD – the most egregious kind.
Again I do not know what alot of people will do – and if you are sure you do – than you are stupid.
What I do KNOW is that so far YOUR predictions have proven WRONG.
Every effort to knock Trump out, has strengthened him instead.
If the majority of people view this as election interferance – Democrats are toast.
John Say,
This does not apply to the Trump case because the 2023 Ciminelli v. United States case was about FEDERAL fraud statutes. Not NY fraud statutes. Governor Cuomo was being tried under FEDERAL fraud statues, specifically FEDERAL wire fraud statues.
You disingenuously copied part of the quote from the case,
“fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests. ”
What it actually says is “FEDERAL fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests.
NY statutes have a much broader definition of what constitutes fraud which is what Merchan correctly used because Trump is charged under NY statutes NOT federal statutes.
NY statues define “intent to defraud” and what can be construed as fraud differently than FEDERAL statutes,
“What’s more, the U.S. Supreme Court has not only expressly noted the distinction between the federal and state level, but also recognized states’ prerogative to fill in the gap. In a 2020 opinion, the Justices explained that due to their narrow construction of the federal criminal statutes, “federal fraud law leaves much public corruption to the States (or their electorates) to rectify.” Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565, 1571-73 (2020).
So, how does New York State law define the “intent to defraud” for the criminal offense of falsifying business records? A long line of New York state court cases supports an expansive conception with respect to § 175.00 crimes – namely, that intent can be established when a defendant acts “for the purpose of frustrating the State’s power” to “faithfully carry out its own law.” People v. Kase, 76 A.D.2d 532, 537–538, 431 N.Y.S.2d 531, 534 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dept. 1980), aff’d, 53 N.Y.2d 989, 441 N.Y.S.2d 671, 424 N.E.2d 558 (1981). ”
The 2000 case was NOT based on Louisiana law. It was based on a FEDERAL money laundering charge, NOT state law. Cleveland was had FEDERAL charges against him. Not state charges. From your link,
“In 1996, Cleveland and Goodson were charged with money laundering under 18 U. S. C. § 1957 and racketeering and conspiracy under § 1962 in connection with a scheme to bribe state legislators to vote in a manner favorable to the video poker industry. Among the predicate acts supporting these charges were four counts of violating the mail fraud statute, § 1341, which proscribes use of the mails in furtherance of “any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining … property by means of … fraudulent … representations.”
These two cases have nothing in commons with Trump’s case at all. This is why you are wrong and why it’s a stupid argument.
Trump was charged under STATE law which has different interpretations of what defrauding is according to the STATE’s specific case law.
Your argument fails to justify the case against Trump’s conviction.
George – You did not read the Ginsburg Case
“Held: State and municipal licenses in general, and Louisiana’s video poker licenses in particular, do not rank as “property,” for purposes of § 1341, in the hands of the official licensor. pp. 18-27.”
Regardless you are making a ridiculously stupid argument.
Murder is murder – no matter what state you are in.
While our criminal laws are constructed somewhat different from state to state, Contra your claim – a State can NOT create its own crime signficantly different from those of the country as a whole.
Most of us KNOW the aphorisam – ignorance of the law is no excuse.
But we are unaware of the ANCIENT legal principle enshrined in the social contract, the rule of law, and the US constitution that a person can not be charged with manufactured crimes – which is quite OBVIOUSLY what you have done here.
It must be possible for a person to know their actions were wrong prior to committing them.
I cited the Supreme courts tying ALL CRIMINAL FRAUD to proof of a violation of a property interest – because that is what the supreme court has done.
The Ginsburg decision BTW was UNANIMOUS – and the fraud alleged was SPECIFICALLY violations of Louisiana STATE LAW.
I would separately note that though Black’s does not explicitly tie Fraud to Property interests (as SCOTUS did).
Blacks DOES explicitly require it to be an attempt to deprive an individual of something that is theirs by RIGHT.
The NY nonsense about fraud EXPLICITY goes far beyond that. I would further note that several others have cited NY Constitutional requirements that obliterate NY’s ridiciculously broad claim.
But if you were npot an idiot you would understand that there are only Two choices – the NY Fraud definition of “unconstitutionally oiver broad, or unconstitutionally vauge” or any effort to win an election is by the NY fraud definition illegal.
Clinton unarguably violated the NYS law – far more than Trump with the collusion delusion – The Steele Dossier was written by Danchenko, it was manufactured from whole cloth – a lie, and it was weaponized politically.
Not to mention that she paid for it from Campaign funds – Unlike Trump – which ACTUALLY violates the FECA – and she was fined for that – unlike Trump.
In 2020 Biden conspired with the media to supress the Hunter Biden Laptop wtory for the purpose of winning the election.
That was a FARF bigger deal than the daniels story.
John Say,
“While our criminal laws are constructed somewhat different from state to state, Contra your claim – a State can NOT create its own crime signficantly different from those of the country as a whole.”
They are not creating their own crimes. They are using their own definitions of fraud.
Ginsberg cited property according to FEDERAL LAW. It was a federal case. Not a state case. It was regarding FEDERAL CHARGES. Not state charges.
None of the cases have anything in common with Trump’s case. You’re still wrong no matter how you try to slice it.
John Say,
“But Judge Merchan’s Jury instruction regarding Fraud was UNCONSTITUTIONAL as determined by US Supreme court precedent applying to Both State and Federal law with respect to Fraud claims that are Far Closer to tangible property interests than in the Bragg case.”
WRONG.
“…the U.S. Supreme Court has not only expressly noted the distinction between the federal and state level, but also recognized states’ prerogative to fill in the gap. In a 2020 opinion, the Justices explained that due to their narrow construction of the federal criminal statutes, “federal fraud law leaves much public corruption to the States (or their electorates) to rectify.” Kelly v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1565, 1571-73 (2020). ”
It’s not unconstitutional.
https://www.justsecurity.org/85831/the-broad-scope-of-intent-to-defraud-in-the-new-york-crime-of-falsifying-business-records/
I gave you direct cites to a unanimous supreme court decision written by Jusitice Ginsberg that remains good law, applies to the states – actually read the holding,
and you respond with some unknown legal opinion from some interest group fixated on security ?
Regardless, your argument EVEN AS YOU FRAME IT is stupid. In Ciminellie SCOTUS found that Federal Fraud claims that did not involve tangible property
VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION.
So your argument is that SCOTUS bars the federal government from VIOLATING THE CONSTITTUTION
But gives the states a blank check ?
If a federal criminal law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for reasons other than a specific clause within the constitution that only applies to the FEDERAL government – then ALL STATE LAWS that are similarly flawed are ALSO unconstitutional.
We have ONE Federal constitution – and pretty much all the provisions of it regarding Criminal law apply equally to the state and federal govenrment. States are allowed to interpret the federal constitution or their states constitutions more broadly with respect to protections for the rights of criminal defendants. But they are NOT allowed to interpret them more narrowly PERIOD.
While the Ginsburg decision is driven by a STATE LAW, – that is not critical. If a federal criminal law is unconstitutional – all state laws with the same flaw are also unconstitutional.
This BTW is Con Law 101
I beleive I also posted Blacks on fraud – while Blacks only implies the connection to property it explicitly defines fraud as an intentional attempt to deprive someone of a TANGIBLE right.
Regardless, Are you so daft as to fail to grasp that the definition of Fraud Merchan used is makes pretty much everything Fraud.
I would note this is actually much bigger a problem that just Fraud.
You are running afoul of the definition of a CRIME
No states are not free to make anything they want a crime.
Blacks defines a crime as:
A crime is an act committed or omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it; a breach or violation of some public right or duty due to a whole community,
Note that while a violation of a public law is requirement so is a breach of a public right or duty.
Put more simply a Crime MUST have the potential to cause real HARM.
In the Supreme court decisions that you ignore there is discussion of Why things like licensing or other intangibles are insufficient to be Fraud.
I know this is really hard for you left wing nuts – but the law – especially criminal law CAN NOT BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.,
If you do not like the clear view of Ginsberg –
You can find a LONG LIST of supreme court causes regarding “void for vagueness”
Please explain to me how ANYONE can know ahead of time that their actions would violate Merchan’s explanation of the NY Statute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/void-for-vagueness-and-the-due-process-clause-doctrine-and-practice#fn1amd5
“Criminal statutes that lack sufficient definiteness or specificity are commonly held “void for vagueness.” 1 Such legislation “may run afoul of the Due Process Clause because it fails to give adequate guidance to those who would be law-abiding, to advise defendants of the nature of the offense with which they are charged, or to guide courts in trying those who are accused.” 2 “Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of [an] enactment.” 3 In other situations, a statute may be unconstitutionally vague because the statute is worded in a standardless way that invites arbitrary enforcement. In this vein, the Court has invalidated two kinds of laws as “void for vagueness” : (1) laws that define criminal offenses; and (2) laws that fix the permissible sentences for criminal offenses.4 With respect to laws that define criminal offenses, the Court has required that a penal statute provide the definition of the offense with “sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”
John Say,
“If a federal criminal law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for reasons other than a specific clause within the constitution that only applies to the FEDERAL government – then ALL STATE LAWS that are similarly flawed are ALSO unconstitutional.”
Federal criminal law is different than state law.
The cases you cited were not about the Constitutionality. They were cases specific to federal charges. Not state charges. Definitions of fraud and how states define it are always different. Just because federal law defines fraud in a certain context does not mean it applies to state laws. You’re forgetting the 10th amendment. It gives states sovereignty in determining crimes and definitions of things like fraud.
Or if you like Wikipedia better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine
Regardless, When the US Supreme court finds a federal criminal law unconstitutional – that applies to all similar state laws.
When the Supreme court strikes a federal law – criminal or otherwise for reasons that are NOT constitutional, that may or many not implicate similar state laws.
Here is a new york court of appeals case that should atleast clarify to you that “void for vagueness” a[pplies in NY also.
This case has some similarity – specifically because the language is so obviously broad that distinguishing what is and is not precluded is impossible.
https://www.newyorkappellatelawyer.com/blog/aggravated-harassment-annoying-and-alarming-decision-by-the-new-york-court-of-appeals/
George – I would further note this is not even Close to the only massive failure in this case.
The ONLY Fraud in the State of NY vs Trump is the case itself.
Hope you’re right!
Juan Merchan and Ray Epps in 2024! In your heart, you know that only they can save Amerika and preserve our sacred Banana Republic.
NPR poll of independents today
If Trump is convicted, will you be more or leas likely to vote for him?
Less likely 11%
More likely 15%
No difference 74%
The trump campaign website for donations crashed today.
Buh buh buh he is a convicted felon!!!
Beahahahahahaha
Great! This gives him more popularity, especially with minorities who feel screwed by the system and see a kindred spirit. Whereas the left wingnuts will throw around “he was convicted” ad nauseum, the fact will remain that he has never been validly convinced. We should always remember that.
This is with certainty going to alter the voting patterns of the election.
There is no doubt that some people will be more likely to vote for Trump and some people will be less likely.
If the NPR poll is correct – great. Regardless, there will be unique patterns to the voting changes.
My guess as an example is that this will strongly benefit Trump among minority – and particularly Black Men.
But it will likely hurt him among young single college educated white women.
If you had asked me – I would have beleived the indictments – as fraudulent as they are would have tanked Trump.
But they had the opposite effect.
I would also note that you can not evaluate this in a vaccuum.
The GA case has blown up. It is likely entirely dead. There was a very small chance if Willis dropped out that some other Democrat prosecutor might have continued it. But Willis is now under attack for a number of things. I doubt she will ever be convicted – but she has been convicted in the court of public opinion, Willis went after Trump and SHE walked away the person people see as the crook.
That contaminates ALL the rest of the cases.
The E. Jean Carrol case for the moment cast Trump alot of money, as did the enmoron case – but if anything both cases made people MORE not less likely to beleive these is a political vendatta and election interferance.
My guess is that Bragg had proceeded to Trial BEFORE the Willis case blew up and before the Enmoron case that the impact of this decision would be much more negative.
But most people – unlike those on this blog are NOT paying attention – they have already decided ALL these cases are politicvally weaponized lawfare.
One of the problems with all the NY cases is that ordinary people do not see anything wrong.
Anyone who has ever sold anything has almost certainly placed a value on it higher than they eventually sold it for.
That is not a crime, it is not fraud and people know that.
Face it E Jean Carroll is a nuts antique hag. Very few people beleive her.
If they did they would not vote for Trump.
But they really have no choice – either they beleive Carroll or they beleive this is lawfare,
Either they beleive EnMoron or they beleive this is lawfare.
By waiting until after Trump lost those cases, that already left the impression in voters minds that NY and the NY courts are heavily biased.
While Trump has very effectively been publicizing that.
Gagging him AMPLIFIED the message.
Ignoring the unconstitutionality – gagging Trump is a massive political mistake.
Nothing makes the claims that the courts are out to get you more credible than the court gagging you.
Inarguably Merchan should have recused himself.
Regardless the damage to Merchan was done before Trump was gagged regarding his daughter.
So Trump spent lots of time saying “this is biased, theis is unfair, this is unconstitutional, but I can’t talk about it”
That is actually a MORE powerful message than Merchan’s daughter is profiting from the trial.
That stings once or twice but once people get it – repeating it just looks like a gratuitous attack on Merchan’s family.
But attacking the Gag order is a winning issue forever.
To all Trump haters in a temporary state of glee: you have burst the dam you are standing under. Do not think you won’t be swept away by the waters.
Also made me think of the short story “The Most Dangerous Game.”
Over at Althouse she practicing her trade mark Cruel Neutrality.
What she definitely is not doing is agreeing with the trial. As a staunch liberal, and never a fan of Trump, she was eager to rid herself of the chaos of Trump. Her take on all of this is revealing.
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2024/05/the-trump-verdict-is-in.html
It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled
— Mark Twain
Gosh, that is so true these past 4 years.
Marks of the con are always the last to figure out the grift.
The Great Perseuction of Trump has some precedent:
“Jesus’ trial before Pilate (Matthew 27:1-2, 11-26)
The chief priests and the elders made their plans against Jesus to put him to death. They put him in chains, led him off and handed him over to Pilate, the Roman governor.
Pilate asked Jesus “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus answered “So you say”, but he said nothing in response to the accusations of the chief priests and elders, which surprised Pilate.
. . . .
Background
Now that the Jewish leaders have found Jesus guilty of a crime deserving the death sentence, they have to take him to the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate. With Palestine an occupied country, only the Romans can put a person to death. This explains why Jesus has to have two trials.
The Sanhedrin has found Jesus guilty of the religious offence of blasphemy. This would be of no interest to the Romans, so the Jewish leaders have to change the charge against Jesus from claiming to be the Son of God to saying he is the King of the Jews. In doing so they are emphasising the political rather than religious implications of claiming to be the Messiah. The Romans would take action for a political offence, particularly something that posed a threat to Roman rule.
. . .
Pilate attempts to ask the crowd what crime Jesus has committed, but they shout “Crucify him!” Finally, Pilate publicly washes his hands to show that Jesus’ death is not his responsibility.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z6b96v4/revision/5
Edward: You’re not far off. Trump did more to help America than any President since Reagan, and at a high cost to himself. What we saw was indeed comparable to that ancient crucifixion of another innocent man, in part because it, too, was cheered on by a demonized mob.
OldMan – Almost exactly 2000 years between the persecutions. Like Rome, we seem to be in a period of decay.
You completely skipped right past the police state fascist show trials of the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, etc to get to one trial in the Old Testament. And they’re still going on in some of those like minded countries. The Soviet Democrats just decided to join them back in 2012, doing the same.
Edward – it does seem that way.
The precedent of the persecution prosecution of Trump happened the last time a Soviet Democrat president was seeking reelection and had prosecutors make up laws to take out their most feared potential opponent. That would be back in 2012, when Jack Smith took out Governor Bob McDonnell who was the most likely Republican to beat them.
You don’t need to go back to Old Testament times to find precedent… and BTW, neither the Jews nor the Romans had free elections to choose their leaders.
Wrong. Yeshua was a Pharisee and had differrences with other Pharisees. This was a natural state of affairs. None of the Pharisees wanted to see Yeshua harmed, let alone killed. To want such a thing would have been against Jewish law. The Romans and the Romans alone wanted Yeshua dead because he represented a threat to Pontius Pilate and the Roman dictatorship. If you read the Gospels in the order they were written (and there are large gaps in time between the Gospels), Yeshua–or Jesus–as they later called him becomes increasing less a Pharisee Rabbi and more and more a strange cult leader, as the texts became increasingly fictionalized over time.
What have you been smoking? It must be some potent sh*t.