Jim Hartman
On May 30, Donald Trump became the first former president to become a felon.
A unanimous Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to “hush money” payments made to porn actress Stormy Daniels.
The verdict wasn’t a surprise given the jury pool in Manhattan where 88% of residents voted against Trump in 2020. Trump hoped to find one or two skeptical jurors to resist conviction resulting in a hung jury.
The jury was not sequestered by the judge to prevent outside influences on jurors.
There were no court days on Wednesdays and a full week elapsed between the conclusion of witness testimony and final arguments. As a result, juror memories fade.
Fifty-five pages of jury instructions were read by the judge, but jurors were not permitted to take the instructions into their deliberations in this complex case. Confused, the jury asked to hear the instructions again.
However, the major problem was not with the jury, but the prosecutors and the judge.
CNN’s senior legal analyst Elie Honig criticized the case against Trump as an “unjustified mess” in a scathing analysis piece, saying prosecutors “contorted the law” to ensnare the former president.
Honig laid out “undeniable facts” about NY vs. Trump.
Acting Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan was handpicked for this case rather than randomly selected. This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization.
Merchan was a small donor to Biden who earmarked donations for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.”
Honig asked: “Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he donated a couple of bucks to Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? “Absolutely not.”
Merchan’s daughter is also a Democratic organizer who has helped raise millions against Trump and the GOP and for Democrats.
It’s not just the appearance of a conflict. Merchan allowed a flood of immaterial and prejudicial evidence to be introduced, made distinctly pro-prosecution rulings in the trial and drafted jury instructions very favorable to prosecutors.
Honig, the CNN legal expert, noted Democratic DA Alvin Bragg ran for office by “touting his Trump-hunting prowess” in deeply blue Manhattan.
The Justice Department declined any federal law criminal action against Trump over the “hush money” payments. The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine.
On the law, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory. The misdemeanor falsification of records statute had already run. To get a guilty verdict on the 34 bookkeeping felonies Bragg needed to prove Trump falsified business records, and also that he did it to commit or conceal a second crime.
While not initially identified, the second crime alleged was a violation of a New York election law, rarely enforced, that prohibits conspiracies to promote political candidates by “unlawful means.”
However, in a circular theory, the “unlawful means” for that other crime could be falsification of business records. It could also be violations of federal election and/or taxation laws, which Trump had never been charged.
Jurors were instructed that as long as they were unanimous Trump falsified business records to aid or cover up an illegal conspiracy to get him elected, they didn’t have to agree about the basis of the “unlawful means” they accepted.
The case was an egregious misuse of the law. Honig concludes it was a “strained convoluted reach” in a case that should never have been brought.
Law professor Jonathan Turley, Fox News legal expert, believes the case will be overturned on appeal, but after the election. Even former Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance acknowledges there will be “strong appeals” to the verdict.
This conviction sets a dangerous precedent – and Trump vows to return the favor.
E-mail Jim Hartman at lawdocman1@aol.com.