SCOTUS Ruling Deems Trump’s New York Conviction Unconstitutional on Two Key Grounds

The People's Voice ^ | June 25, 2024 | Staff

[DouglasKC]

Unless they have 2/3s of the senate there is NOTHING they can do to SCOTUS.

Do you think the Constitution means anything to the deep state?

[pas]

Because NY will just ignore this ruling since it does not explicitly mention Trump.

[ifinnegan]

Unfortunately this is a nonsense article.

Erlinger vs United States Has nothing to do with the jury instructions.

I forgot “People’s Voice” is deep state disinformation.

[mmichaels1970]

The opinion is significant because it provides NY courts with a binding precedent that should result in reversal of the verdict, without requiring Trump to take the case to the SCOTUS, which could take months or years.

I'm trying to get my head around where the significance specifically applies. Is it the "sentence enhancement" part?

My uneducated first take is that the "underlying crime" was used as a means to enhance misdemeanors to felonies (which he was found unanimously guilty on). Therefore, those "underlying crimes" SHOULD have been tried in their own right in front of a jury, returning a unanimous verdict, in order to justify the enhancement of the 35 OTHER charges to felony-level.

I don't think Trump was convicted of the so-called "underlying crime". Not unanimously, not "4-4-4", not at all. The judge's instruction was simply that the jury had to agree that some sort of underlying crime existed. This simple agreement, rather than an actual conviction, lead to the charges being enhanced without due process.

Am I in the right ballpark here? You sound pretty smart. Please help me not look stupid when I'm discussing this over a beer with my friends.

[cdnerds]

If that didnt matter to them - they would have packed the court already. So yes, they have limits. They also know it swings both ways.

[cdnerds]

I'm sure if there is any basis in what you say his lawyers will know what to do.

[MeanWestTexan]

Under Bragg’s theory, Trump did not even have to have committed a crime. He merely had to think he was covering up a crime, whether it was illegal or not.

So, no, this ruling does nothing (in the fantasy land where this nonsense prosecution exists).

[Candor7]

For Trump, this is an argument that his lawyers can add to his appeals, but its not going to bitch slap Bragg, not yet anyway.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

YOu are 100% correct.

I await the immunity case. it may be much more important.

[lastchance]

Read the article carefully. No decision on Trump’s conviction has been rendered. This is basically an opinion article that cites precedent that should figure in the Supreme Court’s decision. It cites the factors which should mean an overthrow of the conviction.

[SuperLuminal]

Almost good news...
Will it cause the communists to pause?

IMHO, the off-hand manner in which NY has handled several 2A decisions by SCOTUS makes me think that nothing will change...
Trump will get a 4-6 year sentence...

[Magnum44]

If you read down thread, I state exactly that many times.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

He posted that they need 2/3. Would the senate need to change the senate rules to change the number of justices in SCOTUS?

[TexasGator]

“Not regarding the specific charges. It was all over the place.”

On the specific charges it was unanimous.

[Impala64ssa]

Have another Twinkie, Alvin! Or two. Or three Or....

[mmichaels1970]

On the specific charges it was unanimous.

Right. So the issue here is with the "underlying crime" that he was never convicted of or even tried for. The underlying crime was used to enhance the charges from misdemeanor to felony right? And the jury was specifically instructed that they did not even need to unanimously agree on a specific underlying crime to determine that one had occurred.

That's where this ruling holds sway right? That they couldn't have enhanced these charges without convicting him, unanimously, of the crime(s) they claimed caused the enhancement in the first place.

Am I getting that right?

[monkeyshine]

It opens the conviction up for another type of appeal. It may even force a “stay” of any criminal sentencing if this judge decides to try to put Trump in jail.

[kneedragger111]

And even if there was an underlying crime, he has yet to be convicted of that crime, so there is nothing that could be used as the underlying crime as the basis for the felony upgrade.

[Churchillspirit]

Good news is always welcome.

Thanks, Red....

[TexasGator]

“That’s where this ruling holds sway right? .... Am I getting that right?”

Going only on the OP, no.

The underlying crime was not one of the counts.

” the Supreme Court ruled that juries must be unanimous on each criminal count”

[Mr.Unique]

You're nuts; this has been fact-checked. ;)