This morning, many of us are emerging from the late coverage last night after the conviction of former President Donald Trump on 34 felonies. I was in the courtroom for the verdict, which hit like a thunderclap (particularly after a strange snafu with the judge). The question that everyone is asking: what happens next?
The scene in the court was a madhouse. Judge Juan Merchan told the court that the jury had not reached a verdict and would be dismissed for the day. Many reporters in the overflow courtroom were leaving when Merchan suddenly said that there was a verdict. People came running back into the courtroom. That was followed by 34 guilty verdicts.
I am obviously saddened by the verdict, but not surprised. Until the very end, I was hopeful that there would be a hung jury, a result that could restore some integrity to the New York criminal justice system. However, I previously noted that the jury instructions made conviction much more likely. I referred to the deliberations as a legal “canned hunt” due to instructions that made conviction a near certainty.
You could feel the weight of history in the courtroom, though we still have to see what history was made. For some, it was the conviction of the first president of a felony. For others, it was the key moment where the weaponization of the criminal system became clear and inescapable. It was both, obviously. Yet, the trial fulfilled narratives on both sides.
I ran outside to join the coverage. (One humorous moment was an officer screaming at reporters piling out of the courtroom to “walk not run.” It did not work.) It looked like the final judgment with everyone panicking to find an exit.
The scene outside the courtroom was surreal. The Trump supporters were outraged. The anti-Trump protesters were ecstatic, dancing and celebrating in the street.
While I have written a book about what I have called “the age of rage,” I am always shocked by such scenes. There is a dehumanizing element of these moments as people celebrate not just the first conviction of a president but a person. Rage is addictive and contagious. That was vividly evident outside the courtroom.
So what happens next?
Obviously, appeals will be taken. As I said last night, we must keep the faith. Indeed, moments like this require us to take a leap of faith in a nation that remains committed to the rule of law. Manhattan is neither the entirety of the country nor the legal system. I believe that these convictions will be overturned, but it will take time. Judge Merchan committed, in my view, layers of reversible error. Eventually, this case may reach the United States Supreme Court.
It has been suggested that an appeal could be taken directly to the Supreme Court. I find that doubtful after the Supreme Court rejected an expedited process for Special Counsel Jack Smith in his federal prosecutions. It will work first through the New York appellate system.
As for the criminal process, Trump will have to meet with a probation officer for an interview. That officer will make recommendations to the court.
There is a possibility of a jail sentence for felonies that come with up to four years for each offense. Any jail sentences would almost certainly run concurrently. However, any jail sentence would be ridiculous in Manhattan for an elderly first-offender in a non-violent offense.
Consistent with his past commentary, MSNBC legal analyst and former Mueller aide Andrew Weissmann predicted that Merchan will give Trump jail time. He is not alone as legal analysts seemed to get caught up in a thrill-kill conviction.
It is much more likely that Merchan will impose a sentence without a jail sentence, though with fines. The most appropriate, in my view, would be a conditional discharge that requires Trump not to commit a new crime or face potential imprisonment.
Merchan could also tailor a sentence to require home confinement or even weekend jailing. Those options would raise serious conflicts with his campaigning and obviously, if elected, serving as president. Even the probation process will be awkward since a convicted defendant ordinarily has to get approval for any travel outside of the state from his probation officer.
Sentences can also include community service, counseling and other requirements.
After his ruling in this trial, it is impossible to rule anything out. However, any jail sentence would add even more outrage to an abuse of the criminal law system.
Jon,
Doesn’t Trump have a Federal civil rights case here? Can’t he claim that New York State acting under”Color of law” has deprived him of the right to run for office and in a full, vigorous manner afforded his political opponent?
Isn’t it exactly the same sort of suit that would’ve been brought against segregationist policies in the US South, when they railroaded negro defendants using bogus charges and contrived legal theories?
I suppose the remedy would be to enjoying sentencing and possibly reverse the jury decision. Help me out here Professor.
Anyone that cannot see at this point that the dems, nay, the entire global leftist apparatus, is a regime – heaven help them. It really is up to the rest of us to pull us through this, and it is going tp be very, very hard, particularly for those legacy dems that vote to save face with their peers.
I am indeed voting for a ‘convicted felon’, you’d better believe it; Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, and Biden can bite me and go to h***. They are the worst thing to happen to this country in its history. And again I am an Independent voter that used to vote for democrats, I voted for Obama the first term. We have had enough, and this just isn’t going to stand. Every malfeasance makes Trump more appealing, even to those that hate him, so good job, dems. You are insane. Certifiably. It is no longer a question. Robespierre 2.0 here we come. This WILL not stand with the people, period.
All good except for the violence ideation. That will backfire in spades. Just ask Robespierre.
Mr. Turley, I am wondering why the Trump attorneys did not insist more on for Judge Merchan to remove himself from this case. HIs democratic leanings were so obvious at the beginning of this mess. They should have taken to the airwaves to apply pressure on the Judge to step aside and to mention his daughter who works for the Left. Supreme Court Justice Alito is facing pressure to recuse himself over any case relating to Mr. Trump because his wife hung the American flag upside down outside of their home. Folks on the Right need to take a few clues from the Left…meaning this: as the squeaky wheel always gets the oil, folks on the Right need to present their superior argument over and over again and beat the Left at their own game. It is possible!
Judge Merchan sought an opinion from an Ethics Committee on the issue of recusal, which found NO conflict of interest. If there are any judges whose impartiality are questionable it’s Thomas and Alito, both of whose wives participated in the insurrection–Ginni Thomas was at the Elipse and Marthanne Alito flew the flag upside down on January 6th and then Alito lied about the reason–he claimed it was a dispute with a neighbor over a yard sign. However, the Fairfax County Sheriff’s office reports that the incident with the neighbor happened in February, AFTER January 6th.
In the South a black man would be automatically convicted even when he was not guilty. The Democrats then claimed that it was because of the rule of the law. They still say the same thing today. Oh yes, true defenders of the rule of law indeed.
@Thinitthrough
Yup. Nothing has changed, not one iota, since the dems wore white hoods and lit crosses on fire. And I do not give a crap what people too young to know better say – they did, and frequently. The total loss of life at the hands of American democrats is likely incalculable.
Sorry, *Think* it through. typing hastily at work.
You mean someone here actually has gainful employment.
I find that very hard to believe.
The American people are speaking out with their hard earned cash. Since just yesterday afternoon the people have contributed $35,000,000 to the Trump campaign. It even caused the campaign contribution sight to temporarily go down but it is now up and is waiting for your support. Time to stop walkin and start talkin. With inflation I know that it’s hard to find any extra money but you should consider it an investment that will more than pay for your contribution in the future. I contributed and I’m retired on a fixed income. The children and grandchildren cast their lonely eyes to you. What will you say when those eyes look at you and ask you, What did you do to fight for my freedom? Did you stand by and do nothing?
Some actual facts:
1. The $35,000,000 number you quote was for the first quarter of 2024.
2. Biden raised $187,000,000 during the same period.
If you are on a fixed income and sending your money to Trump then you are an even bigger loser than he is. The vast majority of the money he raises goes straight into the pockets of his incompetent lawyers., and his own pocket.
He is supposedly a MULTI-BILLIONAIRE.
Why is he constantly begging for money from people like you ??
The simple answer is that he is not a billionaire. He is a loser and a conman and a liar and a cheat
We constantly end up discussing evetremely fundimental issues of law here – particularly with regard to Trump – because those on the left are devoid of any understanding that the law rests on actual foundations.
“The rule of law” is NOT the arbirtrary adherenace to eny law that is conrrectly mechanically enacted by a government.
Over a hundred pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong have been convicted for their role in the protests that took place in hong kong a few years ago. These convictions all followed the laws enacted by the CCP and/or those imposed on Hong Kong by the CCP.
Procedurally these convictions are lawful.
They still violate the rule of law – because the rule of law is NOT the rigid adherence to any laws that are procedural passed.
I and several others have noted that the Supreme court has over the past 2+ decades been throwing out political prosecutions for Fraud in fairly significant numbers. They have done so on the basis that Fraud is a “property crime” or as Blacks Law dictionary provides a crime in which tangible actual or potential harm can occur. That a real person or entity can be deprived of something that they have an actual right to.
The prosecution in NYC never even mentioned anything that anyone had any right to that they were deprived of.
But Blacks also defines a Crime as something that is statutorially proscribed that violates a right or breaches a duty owed to others.
Why does this matter – because something is not a crime – merely because it is statutorially enacted.
The show Trials and star chamber trials of the USSR or CCP or myriads of other lawless regimes met that requirement.
The rule of law is NOT the mere existance of statutes that government obligates people to follow.
As the US Declaration of independence asserts the purpose of government is the protection of the rights of individuals.
Laws that do not protect rights fall outside the rule of law – they are tyranny not law,
Still posting.
Not getting sleepy yet ?????
17-152 is not a felony
Makes me support Trump even more
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
…Consistent with his past commentary, MSNBC legal analyst and former Mueller aide Andrew Weissmann predicted that Merchan will give Trump jail time. He is not alone as legal analysts seemed to get caught up in a thrill kill conviction.
7:30 AM · May 31, 2024
Thrill kill like this? Biden ?
Well, they’ve done it. They’ve cut down all the trees, eliminating the excuse why people could not see the forest. Put another way, no more warnings will be necessary. Pick whatever euphemism to describe the Democratic party, based on their actions; progressives, socialists, communists, Leftists, tyrants, totalitarians, it doesn’t matter anymore. They’ve removed all doubt. Dan Bongino often asks, are things bad enough yet? The answer has always been, not yet. After this verdict, we are there. For all those not paying close attention to this case, well, they will be now. Independents and the “undecided” will suddenly replicate the mitosis process. We haven’t become a banana republic. We’re worse. Over the last 3+ years, banana republics have been emptying their prisons and exporting them and other undesirables to the United States. While they are “cleaning up” their countries, we’ve become their landfill. Face it. We were always going to reach this point. Like re-watching the Challenger launch, we know what happens after being told Challenger, go with throttle up. BOOM! Okay, game on.
People who continue to vote for and support Democrats are scum, and just as bad as the party leaders and apparatchiks. They are just as scummy as the Main Stream Media. All that being said, the scum may win and defeat the remaining good people in the country. It happened in Germany, and it can happen here.
The Democratic party brand is going to instantly become Chernobyl to any Democrat hoping to win over lukewarm Democrats and Independents. Tulsi saw it long ago and Joe Manchin is hoping voters won’t recognize he’s just a rat leaving a sinking ship.
OLLY said: “We haven’t become a banana republic. We’re worse. Over the last 3+ years, banana republics have been emptying their prisons and exporting them and other undesirables to the United States. While they are “cleaning up” their countries, we’ve become their landfill.”
Maybe Trump’s first act of office should be to round up all registered Democrats, beginning with those who hold, or have held, political office, and “export” them to places like Mexico, Venezuela, and possibly China. Being facetious, but barely.
Maybe Trump’s first act of office should be to round up all registered Democrats, beginning with those who hold, or have held, political office, and “export” them to places like Mexico, Venezuela, and possibly China.
😉 Number 6, I certainly understand the sentiment.
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 (four iterations for maximum clarity – 1802 never having been legally abrogated).
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
@OLLY
Very well said. Wish I could disagree, but I can’t. The dems are a fascist regime akin to the Nazi party of old, and if history didn’t teach the sane that lesson, I don’t know what will. Nothing about this is ok, and the people celebrating have shown what unequivocally constitutes their elitist and privileged status quo. To think otherwise is so laughable I forgot to laugh.
As an aside – if anyone, anywhere still thinks NYC is anything but an enclave for the uber-rich and tone deaf – think again. And yes, that includes ‘AOC’s’ Bronx, or Queens, or Staten Island.
Nothing about this is ok, and the people celebrating have shown what unequivocally constitutes their elitist and privileged status quo.
Thanks James. I suspect many of them won’t be dancing on this graveyard of a republic for long. Schumer’s reap the whirlwind will not be about the intel community, but the vast majority in this country that haven’t lost their f*cking minds.
Beautiful comment, thanks.
Thank you Anonymous. If you at least signed your comments with something to distinguish you from all others, then I could truly thank you properly.
The Democrats in power are acting like the Nazis did almost 100 years ago. They thrive on hate and abuse of power but are not as smart as the Nazis and like them, will be removed from power. Let’s hope that happens before they damage civilization as badly as the Nazis did.
Once again, we hear from the dumb, deaf and blind.
“Trump wasn’t charged with conspiring to influence an election. He was charged with — and convicted of — falsifying business records.”
I’m genuinely curious, and I’m sure many of you are too, about the intricate details of how these records were allegedly and illegally falsified.
Consider this: the explanations we’ve been given imply that any NY businessman could potentially face arrest for similar fabricated crimes. This could have far-reaching implications. In the past, NYC overstepped its bounds and almost went bankrupt. Donald Trump was one of the investors helping save the city from wrongdoing.
The purpose of business records of this type is twofold. They contain information the business needs to function appropriately and information the IRS needs to fulfil its taxing authority.
Did Trump fulfil the IRS requirements? Yes. So where is the crime? They created that non-crime, but if some lack of reporting occurred, the worst that would have happened would be a fine in some way proportional to the monies the IRS might not receive.
This fabricated crime by parties interested in taking Trump down to prevent his reelection (election interference) was linked to another fabricated crime to obtain a conviction. To do so, a judge violated Trump’s constitutional rights and denied due process to the defendant along with many other judicial failures.
What is impressive to me is that so many Democrats, I won’t refer to them as radical leftists, applaud what happened. It is stupid to believe that when the rule of law disappears, one is safe from fascist rule. One is not, and both the left and the right will pay for the disappearance of the rule of law.
You are forever twisting words, Allan; the most disingenuous person to ever post here.
“You are forever twisting words, Allan;”
Yet another name, Boozer? You don’t seem to say anything. Shall I give you a bit more time to wake up and toss the magots off your dirty clothes?
So after the idiocy in Manhattan which outside of the left is getting excoriated as a bannana republic move,
you think making a vague allegation without any backup is credible ?
@S. Meyer,
If you were genuinely curious you would do yourself a favor and do your own research. But we know your intellect is lacking and your abilities limited.
Thats how we know you’re easily confused and befuddled.
The Speech Moron says, “If you were genuinely curious you would do yourself a favor and do your own research. “
I did and found precisely what I outlined. If you think differently, present the reasons, as I have. You can’t, but you will repeat your stupidity which is why you are known as the Speech Moron.
George – I asked you to explain how the US Supreme courts multidecade record of invalidating political convictions for Fraud where that alleged fraud did not involve tangible property rights violations could be reconcilled with this case.
And your response was that the Supreme court defers to states in criminal law.
I pointed out that the Lousiana case involved Lousiana LAw and you ignored that.
I pointed out that if a federal law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL – that a state law with the same flaws is ALSO unconstitutional.
And you have entirely ignored that.
While you are correct that the appeals on this will take a long long time.
There is zero doubt this will be overturned.
Frankly everyone – even those of you on the left KNOW that.
You keep echoing “not before the election” – making it perfectly clear that your “intent” is the intefere with the election.
Essentially confessing that you are violating NYS 17-152 – attempting to unlawfully influence an election.
“….zero doubt that this will be overturned.”
On what grounds?
Where the fvck have you been Wally?
Idiot
The 5th amendment
The 6th amendment
The 14th amendment
Idiot
SM Trump was not convicted merely of falsifying business records – while that claim is on its face ludicrous – atleast partly for reasons you listed, there are more reasons than that.
To elevate to a felony and get beyond the statute of limitations the purpose of the falsification had to be for some OTHER criminal purpose.
But no other crime was charged and there are very few exceptions to the prohibition to introducing uncharged crimes in a criminal prosecution.
The Weisman conviction was tossed over that, as well as the Cosby conviction.
Bragg’s legal theory is complex.
The First rung in Braggs convoluted theory is the uncharged but alleged 17-152 Violation, this unconstitutional law makes it a felony to unlawfully try to influence an election. This is a statute that fails both US and NY constitutional void for vaguenss constraints.
Which is precisely why Bragg used it to bootstrap this.
Unlawful does NOT mean criminal parking violations are unlawful, and 17-152 as written would allow bootstrapping a parking violation into a felony if the parking violation was part of an effort to win an election.
Regardless by using 17-152 as a stepping stone – Bragg/Merchan elminated the reuqirement to prove all the elements of any other crime by a reasonable doubt – they do not need an actual crime – and therefore they do not need to prove the elements of a crime.
The Jury instructions merely required that The Jury conclude that there may have been State tax reporting violations, federal tax reporting violations or Federal election law violations.
The critical aspect here is that 17-152 allowed Bragg to avoid proving all the required elements of any other CRIME.
The “dots” are – the record keeping claims are a fellony because they are to cover up another crime.
The Crime is a violation of 17-152 which merely requires attempting to unlawfully influence an election – unlawful rather than criminal means the normal standard requiring charging an actual crime and proving each element is dispensed with.
There are many many problems with this nonsensical scheme. But ONE significant one is that it requires Time travel.
17-152 makes a crime of unlawfully influencing an election. Unlawfully influencing an election must occur BEFORE the election.
The tax and FECA allege violations all occured AFTER the election and therefore could not influence the election and violate 17-152.
This was all a smoke and mirrors show – a wink and nod one – Note in Braggs on Press conference he makes absolutely no secret that this prosecution was not about Business records – it was about “influencing the election”
You will note that the only way the Daniels payments show up in the jury instructions is with regard to the claim of buisness records falsification.
Everything involving daniels disappears after that.
The Jury was supposed to conflate the daniels payment which allegedly was election related, with the subsequent unlawful election interferenace, But the predicate allegations to the 17-152 violation are not about the election they are about things that happened AFTER the election.
The jury was supposed to conclude what those on the left already beleive and have not let go of, that Trump illegitimately won the 2016 election.
And that is pretty much EXACTLY What Bragg said.
“SM Trump was not convicted merely of falsifying business records”
That is true, John, but remember the crucial starting point of prosecutorial and judicial crimes. I use the word crimes because such destruction of the rule of law should be criminal, even if, presently, I can’t cite any law on the books. It’s critical to present an unbroken logical argument in this discussion.
We need to work through the crimes listed without skipping over the details that prove Trump innocent.
“Bragg’s legal theory is complex.”
That is the basis for the win: complexity. The win doesn’t exist when the facts are individually examined. The prosecutor stepped over many boundaries, and the judge didn’t permit discussion of individual facts.
I agree with many of your other thoughts, but I want to think linearly and logically in this case. When there is a break in the connection, I like the ones claiming Trump’s guilt to find a way around the break or stop making their claims.
Your comment was excellent.
@S. Meyer
Precisely, but the narrative will ignore that fact and you know it. If they could have just shot him, they would have. Let us pray we do not get to the CCP-like moment where that is reality in this country. The supremely ignorant (and ironically, in theory most ‘educated’) among us have no idea what they are asking for.
James, the left of today, functions similarly to Stalin and recently has added a bit of Nazism. We all know it but haven’t yet figured out a way to stop the left from committing crimes meant to destroy our Constitutional Republic.
HEADLINES:
VA-DAY!
GLOBAL COMMUNISM WINS!!!
THANK YOU, “CRAZY ABE” AND KARL MARX!!!
None of this was a surprise. It is sad, however, that many Americans have elevated such a man to this stature in our republic. Be reminded, the DA does not just get to indict a person. It goes before a grand jury who determine if there is enough evidence to proceed. Obviously, this case had enough evidence. It then went to court where 12 jurors, everyday normal people, two of whom were attorneys, heard the evidence against Mr. Trump and unanimously decided he had broken the law on 34 felony counts. The evidence is and was overwhelming against him. It should also be noted that prosecutors do not bring cases to trial unless they absolutely know the perp actually committed the crime AND that they can get a conviction. This is why prosecutors have 99%+ conviction rates.
Many of Trump’s associates are already in jail for stunts related to this and his several other pending trials. The next steps, Jon, for Mr. Trump, besides being sentenced in this felony, is the progression of his several MORE serious cases where he will also be convicted for the reasons outlined above. The prosecutors KNOW he committed the crimes and they KNOW they can convict him. The only way he avoids further accountability is if he is elected and nefariously pardons himself. That would be another low first in our nation.
“. . . 12 jurors, everyday normal people . . .”
Thanks for the guffaw.
@Jeff
You’re a paid troll with a stock photo, Jeff, and we all know it.
Worse. Check the link on his avatar. He owns nursing homes. ROFLMAO. No doubt Medicare pays him mega bucks for mega fraudulent billing
If the defendant had the right to pick the venue, and not the prosecutor, do you seriously think that Trump would have been convicted? The statute expired on the accounting issue, and the “other crimes” were never legally pursued, so basically hearsay. There’s a Supreme Court ruling saying that any such incidental crime must be agreed upon by the jury.
What the prosecutors here knew was that 85% of Manhattan voted for Biden, and many of those believe the hogwash that Trump is some kind of danger to the country, despite us having lived peacefully and prosperously under his presidency for four years. A presidency which he peacefully left when the time came.
Jeff, I know who you are and your level of education. Therefore, you should be able to provide more than the superficial generalities I see.
“have elevated such a man”
Can you tell us why Biden should be elevated and not Trump?
” It goes before a grand jury”
Have you heard the phrase, a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich?
” 12 jurors, everyday normal people,”
Were they everyday normal people?
” 34 felony counts”
Do you recognize most of those 34 felony counts were indistinguishable? That should alert an intelligent person to ask some obvious questions. One count covers many of the others.
“The evidence is and was overwhelming against him.”
Great! I have finally found a person who can detail the crime step by step. Part of your training was in accounting. Another one on the blog is an accountant. He told us his concerns, but I didn’t hear you contradict him. Using specifics, what did Trump do wrong that isn’t done daily by businessmen? He followed standard practice, and an NDA is legal.
If Trump is guilty based on his register, you and I can be found guilty as well, especially you, based on what you do for a living. Many of your financial concerns and claims are open to interpretations and uncertainties.
“Many of Trump’s associates are already in jail ”
That has nothing to do with this case, but if you wish to discuss many of these cases in the future, we can do so by examining the lawfare involved in the wrongful convictions where the rule of law was not applied equally to the right and left.
“several MORE serious cases ”
You don’t want to hide behind superficial questions that leave out the details, so let’s discuss the specifics of the case at hand. That way, we can resolve our differences.
“prosecutors do not bring cases to trial unless they absolutely know the perp actually committed”
Some prosecutors do. Look up the cases of Howard Root and Michael Singer. Both spent millions of dollars proving their innocence, just like Trump will because the prosecutors went down the same devious route.
You might be more interested in Michael Singer because he founded Medical Manager. He did nothing wrong, but you use a program similar to the one he developed, which is, in turn, similar to the program Trump used. It took prosecutorial manipulation and a jury who hated Trump like you to find him guilty. A similar jury could find you guilty of thousands of counts based on the logic of calling the check to Michael Cohen, an act leading to Trump’s guilt.
Turley said: “Regarding “moments like this require us to take a leap of faith in a nation that remains committed to the rule of law.”
Seriously? Is Turley a dedicated “whistle past the graveyard” type? Or possibly he was just looking for an excuse to employ that ridiculous throwaway line? Leap of faith, my a$$, that is now an outright delusion (hallucination might be a more accurate word). Will he also claim that we are required to make a leap of faith that the perpetrators of this abomination are just misguided folks who made a few mistakes? IMO, that proposition is approximately equivalent on the leap of faith scale. Back in the late 1970s or early 1980’s, when the UK began earnestly circling the toilet bowl, a member of Parliment opined that “we are now a banana republic with no bananas”. That might be considered a charitable description of the United States of America on May 31, 2024.
I’m a bit curious on a piece of law as well as evidentiary criteria. This “intent to commit another crime” language is something I haven’t heard of before. When I first saw this “with the intent to commit another crime” language,” I assumed that this other crime either was already proven or had to be proven concurrently in a court of law.
My understanding is that the jury was given no criteria by which to determine this “other crime.” Not even preponderance of the evidence. I suppose they may have intuitively used the reasonable doubt standard. But even so, it doesn’t look like evidence about this “other crime” is presented in court in any depth since the defendant is not charged with this “other crime.”
That doesn’t strike me as acceptable.
I suppose more accurately it is the “underlying crime” of the “other crime.” The “other crime” being the New York state elections law, and the “underlying crime” referenced therein. Their determination of that “underlying crime” involves what exactly?
You are correct. There is no instance where a finding of an intent to commit a crime alone is sufficient for a criminal conviction.
A criminal conviction ALWAYS requires:
An indictment – or whatever that states equivalent, a charge, a trial on that charge.
The indictment must include a GJ finding of SOME evidence of every statutory element of the crime.
The case can not go to trial without the Prosecutor providing the court some evidence of every element of the crime.
It can not go to the jury if during the trial it becomes clear that there is no evidence or evidence that is clearly false of some elements of the crime.
In all cases where there is a predicate crime – either that crime has to have already been convicted elsewhere or the crime must ALSO be indicted, charged, and meet the same evidentiary requirements as the dependent offense.
In ALMOST all cases Criminal intent is an independant requirement – there are a few crimes such as statutory rape or negigent homicide that do not require criminal intent – but those are rare.
But the opposite is also true – Criminal intent is NEVER sufficient for a crime. You can intent to murder your neighbor, you can tell everyone you are going to murder your neighbor, but you can not be convicted for attempting to murder your neighbor until you take actions towards actually murdering your neighbor.
There is absolutely no such thing as a crime of pure intent.
I would further note that while you can be arrested convicted and prosecuted for an attempted crime once you start taking action to commit that crime, if either you or even outside events intervene and disrupt the attempt and you do NOT act to resume you can not be convicted.
@ John Say
Posting all night, and now all day ??
Having trouble sleeping ??
Long, disjointed, disconnected, stream of consciousness rants.
Bipolar disorder.
Well, Professor, outside the confines of the academy, it has been apparent for a long time that the “rule of law” has been abandoned by the courts and legal profession of the United States. I don’t like Trump, but that’s hardly the point. He was elected president in 2016 and prosecuting him was a fateful step that could lead to a national unraveling. It was wildly irresponsible to prosecute him, but there has been no check on prosecutors, so inevitably some of them will behave very irresponsibly – there’s no deterrent. This is going to delegitimize our courts and the legal profession. Maybe that’s the way it should be. Maybe we deserve it.
Turley has stood by (as has Dershowitz) while the legal guild has collapsed and imploded, taken over by student government activists and liars.
He’s partially responsible as a member of law “school” faculty.
Turley, the legal “profession” is now effectively destroyed in the US.
You’re partially responsible.
It’s a new day. So there’s a new, cockeyed theory of the “charges” and “crimes:”
“Trump wasn’t charged with conspiring to influence an election.”
And yet this from the prosecution: “Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means . . .”
In other words, Trump was charged (sort of) and convicted (maybe) of violating New York Election Law Section 17-152.
But stay tuned. There’s always tomorrow.
Anyone remember “night of the long knives” in Nazi Germany? This is the beginning in the USA, if we let it happen!
Right after the verdict, Todd Blanche gave an interview where he was asked if Trump played an active part in the defense. “What do you think?” was the answer.
Yes, Trump suffers from know-it-all-syndrome, and micromanaged his lawyers. This led to disastrous blunders in front of the Jury:
• In Opening Arguments, the defense bloviated that “there never was any sexual liaison with Stormy Daniels”
• The defense’s final witness, Bob Costello, was caught trying to deceive the Jury, exposed under cross by an email
contradicting his earlier testimony that Cohen told him Trump knew nothing about the NDA payoff
• The aforementioned email indicated Giuliani and Costello conspired to witness-tamper Cohen
What do you think a Juror thinks when the defendant is caught red-handed trying to dupe him/her, after failing to tamper with a key witness?
Do you notice how Trump NEVER takes responsibility when he screws up? He scapegoats and lies. He cannot learn from his mistakes. He tries to interfere in things he knows little about. That’s how he lost a case that a normal defendant with good lawyers could have successfully rebutted.
People who espouse pro-Biden lies are now the enemy. Consider yourself warned…
Do you notice how Trump NEVER takes responsibility
You mean Biden, democrats, leftist media monsters, all the anchors and writers and editors of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, NYT, WAPO, ad infinitum.
What a blind fool u r
@pbinca,
That is the most sensible post so far explaining Trump’s need to micromanage. It’s the same attitude that led him into this case.
Bravo.