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

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

[Red Badger]

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered two precedent-setting rulings that could significantly impact former President Donald Trump’s criminal convictions.

In a decisive 6-3 decision in the Erlinger vs United States case, the Supreme Court ruled that juries must be unanimous on each criminal count, a standard not met in Trump’s New York case, where the jury returned a 4-4-4 verdict on the underlying crime.

This ruling underlines that Trump’s conviction was unconstitutional and must be overturned. During Trump’s New York trial, the judge had instructed the jury that unanimity on the specific crimes was unnecessary, as long as they agreed that a crime had taken place.

Additionally, SCOTUS ruled that sentencing enhancements cannot be arbitrarily implemented by judicial fiat, further solidifying the protections against unjust legal procedures.

These rulings have profound implications for Trump’s legal battles, particularly the controversial case led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and the bogus J6 1512(c) charges and sentencing enhancements that corrupt federal judges have announced they will implement if the Supreme Court nukes 1512(c).

The Supreme Court’s decisions underscore the necessity for unanimous jury verdicts in criminal convictions and proper judicial processes in sentencing enhancements, casting doubt on the validity of current and future proceedings against Trump.

[mmichaels1970]

But the jury did not even vote on the FEC-type charge that made the 34 other charges felonies

Now THAT is where the unconstitutionality comes in, IMHO. THAT is where they were told they didn’t need to be unanimous. And that is why the 34 felonies that they DID find unanimously guilty should have never been brought. Not without trying him for the underlying crime. They could have pursued 34 misdemeanors of falsification without the underlying crime. But Bragg chose to enhance them to felonies based on unstated crimes that he was never tried or found guilty of. This whole case is a steaming pile of trash.

[Fuzz]

Lies.

I’m far from reasonable.

[Lazamataz]

Ha!

[sunny bonobo]

His conviction was overturned.
***************
In what alternate universe did that happen?

[sunny bonobo]

Two things. First, it’s a lying headline. Scotus did no such thing.
Second, I hate to bring everyone down from their high, but this does not mean what you think it means. The jury was unanimous in the underlying crime. It was a certain New York state statute. Don’t remember the number but it was violating New York election law. Wg-hat they didn’t have to agree on was the method that he used to do it, such as whether he used a knife or gun to rob the bank.

[sunny bonobo]

They all agreed he was guilty of the specific charges.
********************
It’s futile. You are never going to convince all the legal experts on here. They don’t like facts.

[sunny bonobo]

there were 34 charges and the jurors did not have to be unanimous on each count
*******************
They WERE unanimous on each of the 34 counts.

[txrangerette]

Trying to catch up with “true facts” about this case and its
ruling.

Bottom line, this is not a Trump specific case. It’s different and yet the fact it was ruled this way does seem to apply to Trump’s case.

I could be wrong but I think his case must be specifically ruled on. A different case ruled on though applicable to Trump’s case does not nullify his case (like it
would automatically be reversed while never being taken up
by the Court.)

No...

[joesbucks]

Since you asked, neither of the 2 cases you are referring to (Gonzales and Erlinger) are controlling in the Trump case. Otherwise his conviction would be already reversed.

[bert]

Bragg is Black. His actions are all colore3d by race.

[Lakeshark]

Our resident Bolshevik legal expert returns.

And Trump is totally guilty of everything and anything bad, because you're so smart. Love it.

Going through life this stupid should hurt? Does it?

[Lazamataz]

Since you asked, neither of the 2 cases you are referring to (Gonzales and Erlinger) are controlling in the Trump case. Otherwise his conviction would be already reversed.

Are you aware of the doctrine of stare decisis and the application of precedence that is incorporated therein?

This Erlinger case, decided by SCOTUS this cycle, reasserts that "juries must be unanimous on each criminal count", a point of law specifically denied by "Judge" Merchan in the Trump trial, who bizarrely instructed the jury that they need not agree on the predicate crime required by New York law.

Thus, Trump's convictions are sure to be overturned once the matter gets out of the corrupted New York State court system.

You undoubtably will either breeze right past these points of law; or you will switch to an unrelated topic; or you will invent an unrecognized legal principle that does not apply.

Based on my legal explanation: Do you still hold that Donald Trump received a fair trial, and in fact was treated with kid gloves?

[kiryandil]

I’m old enough to remember when joesbucks was poo-pooing the notion that there was something wrong with his Joe Biden.

[Lazamataz]

This Erlinger decision was interesting in that they RE-asserted that juries must be unanimous in their verdict.

How often does SCOTUS revisit an issue and come to the same conclusion? Not often. They may revisit an issue and overturn a previous decision; that has happened quite a few times in SCOTUS history.

But to affirm their previous decision? That’s quite rare.

It’s almost as if they were sending smoke signals to Trump. I cannot know for sure — no one can — I feel they were signaling Trump.

[joesbucks]

I’ve expressed numerous times my beliefs on your last question. So why do you keep asking?

Stare decisis has nothing to do with those 2 cases impacting Trump. So why wasn’t his verdict reversed because of those rulings?

[Lazamataz]

I’ve expressed numerous times my beliefs on your last question.

In other words, you still believe Trump had a fair trial and that, in fact, he was treated with kid gloves.

So why do you keep asking?

I'm gauging whether new legal facts (such as the SCOTUS reaffirmation that juries must be unanimous in all aspects of a verdict) will alter your view.

But as you imply without directly stating: Nope. No amount of new information will alter your view.

Stare decisis has nothing to do with those 2 cases impacting Trump.

It absolutely does, at a level of confidence of 100%.

So why wasn’t his verdict reversed because of those rulings?

His verdict will be reversed because of those rulings, but it takes time. Relatedly, and only to demonstrate that these things take time: There are 50 to 100 J6 defendants that will have their convictions overturned based on a J6-related SCOTUS decision. Again, these things take time.

[joesbucks]

At the end of the day those 2 cases don’t directly apply to Trump but might possibly be used as part of his appeal.

[Lazamataz]

At the end of the day those 2 cases don’t directly apply to Trump but might possibly be used as part of his appeal.

Eureka! A BREAKTHROUGH!

I paint this as a win.

For your (admittedly grudging) acceptance of reality, I hereby grant you a (semi) private showing of my most recent meme work.

[laplata]

In light of this, can Trump’s lawyers do anything to stop the sentencing on July 11?

[kiryandil]

Geez!

I'll bet that his "brother the lawyer" has been just ACHING to share his legal knowledge about The Wetback Cur and "The Convicted Felon" with us, but has been frustrated because of the recent mini-vacay...