Or Merchan wants to end the case now before further investigations reveal his corruption. Could this be what the judge fears?
Yale Law Professor Has Brilliant Plan for Trump Legal Team to Overturn ‘Guilty’ Verdict Before the Election
“Could Trump actually be put in jail? You bet he could.”
“Each count of this 34 count indictment has a maximum penalty attached to it of four years. Well, that’s four times 34. That’s a maximum sentence, prison sentence of 136 years.”
“Will he do that? Of course not. He won’t. But could he sentence him to some incarceration? Yes, he could. Will he? Nobody knows.”
Yale Law Professor Jeb Rubenfield, who teaches Advanced Constitutional Law, counseled the Trump legal team on a course of action that could potentially see his ‘guilty’ verdict overturned before the 2024 election.
“Now, when is sentencing scheduled for? Well, Judge Merchan has set it for July 11th.”
“Will something happen between then and now? Yes. Trump’s team will ask for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”
“They’ll ask for Judge Merchan to throw out the jury’s verdict and find Trump innocent despite the verdict, and Judge Merchan will turn that down.”
“Then there will be arguments about what the sentence should be briefing on both sides, possibly even a hearing. Then on July 11th, sentencing will be announced. And at that point, that triggers the Trump team’s right to appeal.”
“To what court would they appeal? Well, they would appeal to New York’s appellate level court... And after the appellate court rules, then the case could go up to New York’s highest court, which is actually called the Court of Appeals... And after that, the case could go up to the Supreme Court.”
“And ultimately it might well go to the Supreme Court where finally we will have a definitive, conclusive ruling on whether the conviction was constitutional or not.”
Professor Rubenfield identified a massive, glaring problem with this legal appeals process.
“Of course that would take years, and that’s a problem here. Why is it a problem? It’s a problem because the election will have taken place and if this conviction is unlawful and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on that election.”
“There are surveys, many polls in which a substantial number of American voters say they will not vote for Trump if he is convicted of a felony. Many independents say that, many Republicans even say that. If that’s true, an unlawful conviction in this case could interfere with and in fact decide the outcome of the next election of the next President of the United States”
“Even if the conviction were reversed on appeal years later, that effect could not be undone in legal terms. That’s called IRREPARABLE HARM. The irreparable harm, once again, is that a ‘convicted felon’ could affect the election, could decide the election.”
“And if so, then District Attorney Bragg and Judge Merchan will have UNLAWFULLY INTERFERED with the election and decided the outcome of the next election through unconstitutional means. And no years long appeal could have any effect on that.”
This is the critical point that Professor Rubenfield makes: There is another way.
“Well, is that where we are? So are we stuck with that possibility? Well, believe it or not, there is one other avenue that the Trump lawyers could pursue. They could sue in federal court and ask for an emergency temporary restraining order.”
“Restraining order of what? Well, let me tell you something that you might not know. You’ve probably been reading in the press if you’ve been reading about this case. The Trump is already a “convicted felon.” The jury has convicted him. He’s a “convicted felon.”
“Well, guess what? THAT’S NOT TRUE.”
“You’re not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict. You’re not convicted unless the judge enters a judgment of guilt against you. The judge still has the power, as I told you before, to throw out that verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal. You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt.”
“Now in New York, it’s very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issued sentencing. That’d be July 11th.”
“So what would this federal case be about in this federal action? Trump would sue District Attorney Bragg and other state actors and ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt until the federal courts have had an opportunity to review and rule on the serious constitutional arguments that exist here.”
“Let me tell you why I think that might be a very important thing to happen. Because going after, criminally, a former president of the United States and somebody who is running for president now, that’s a VERY BAD LOOK for this country.”
“It’s an especially bad look when the folks bring in the case and the judge deciding it are members of the opposing political party. And it’s an even worse look when the crime is so unclear that the state is hiding the ball about what the actual charges are right up through the trial and indeed into the trial.”
“And even now, we don’t know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of. If you’re going to go after a former president and somebody who’s running for president now the poll leading candidate, if you’re a member of the other party and you’re going to do that, YOU BETTER HAVE THE GOODS. You better not be pursuing some novel legal theory where you have to hide the ball. It’s not even clear what the charges are.”
“That could be a very dangerous precedent for this country. A very bad and dangerous precedent.”
“That’s why it’s so important for a federal court to review the constitutionality of this prosecution and decide, was it constitutional, was it not?”
“The only way to achieve that before the election takes place is for the Trump team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily hold off the entry of the judgment of guilt until the federal courts and maybe the Supreme Court itself can on an emergency basis adjudicate the likelihood of success of these constitutional arguments.”
“If that doesn’t happen, then that IRREPARABLE HARM danger that I mentioned before, well that’s where we are.”
“But if it does happen, the nation could get a ruling from the federal courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, before the election takes place.”
“Maybe that’s what the nation needs and maybe that’s what the law requires here. So if I were Trump’s lawyer, that’s probably what I would do.”
Mark Levin is trying to get a State AG to sue the State of New York for election interference so that it goes directly to the Supreme Court.
I’m still wondering what the two lawyers were doing on that jury?
I agree with what the law professor proposes. I personally thought that, before the trial started, PDJT should have recruited one or more GOP state attorneys general to file suit on behalf of their state or states versus the state of New York in the U. S. Supreme Court, invoking the original jurisdiction that the USSC has in lawsuits between state governments, and sought a writ of prohibition (or other injunctive relief) against the state of New York going forward with the trial.
Mark Levin has been talking about similar concepts in his really great radio broadcasts of the last few days. He is urging PDJT’s legal team to bring an action on his behalf directly to the USSC, I think pursuant to USSC Rule 20, requesting the issuance of a “common law writ” such as a writ of prohibition. Whether the USSC would grant PDJT such access to its processes is iffy, because he has not yet exhausted his appeal rights in the NY state court system. However, if a state (such as, say, Texas or Missouri or North Dakota, etc.) sued New York state, the USSC would have to take the case and make some sort of decision. The states would be arguing that NY is violating the civil rights of their citizens who voted to nominate PDJT for president in violation of federal statutes such as 42 USC 1983 or 18 USC 241, and that the USSC must issue a writ that prevents NY state from going any further in the NY v. Trump case.
In addition to the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment violations that have been perpetrated by the firm of Bragg, Colangelo and Merchan, there is also an “ex post facto” law claim that can be raised here. Sometime after the time that the business records at issue in this litigation were created, the NY state legislature passed a law which extended the statute of limitations law by a year. IMO, this is “ex post facto” law which is unconstitutional under the main body of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 3. The indictment against PDJT after the end of the 5 year statute of limitations for felonies but before the extra year tacked on the NY legislature ran out. The NY state constitution does not have a provision that is similar to the federal constitution. However, there is at least one state appellate decision in New York, People v. Hudy, that suggests that it does in fact apply.