Seems like this would have ripple effects. Trump skates but since ruling wasn't based on "immunity", then Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton are all potential candidates for actual crimes committed while in office?
Posted on 06/25/2024 9:17:23 AM PDT by 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.
Right. It simply may be related.
Hopefully, so, anyway.
23-370 Erlinger v. United States (06/21/2024)
Supreme Court of the United States (.gov)
https://www.supremecourt.gov › opinions
PDF
4 days ago — JUSTICE GORSUCH delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns the Armed Career Criminal Act. (ACCA) and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
I have not seen anyone suggesting it is a Trump specific case, merely that it sets a precedent that will allow overturning of the Trump case.
Pleasure!
Only if Trump’s Attorneys are prepping a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the USSC as we speak. I do not see how they could not accept it and stay the sentencing. Both cases have the same lack of due process issue.
The whole "4-4-4" thing was a hypothetical in the news to explain the wiggle room the jury was given.
-PJ
This provides the NY courts, “cover”. They can now say that SCOTUS said XYZ, thus the verdict must be thrown out and a new trial started if NY State wants to re try (do over)
However
I have little faith that is what will happen.
Title still very misleading. Its an opinion article, not breaking news. It ‘may’ vs ‘will’ allow overturning of Trump case. Pardon me if if dont break out any champagne just yet.
.
There are about seven easy, crystal clear bases for overturning the NY Verdict.
Mark my words, the easiest is juror instructions, he gave them the wrong instructions for the Federal Law they were to contemplate. The count that made it a felony.
.
Bigbob is right.
And the Court of Appeals (in NY) is playing their part.
NY changed the statute of limitations to get Trump. That’s unconstitutional.
Trump should now sue anytime and everytime someone calls him a convicted felon.
I understand. I think the decision will be helpful but there are slips between cup & lips.
Seems like this would have ripple effects. Trump skates but since ruling wasn't based on "immunity", then Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton are all potential candidates for actual crimes committed while in office?
It’s time to Sue Pinhead Alvin
Isn't that what they did to Mark Steyn?
Yes, large balloons will fly saying orange man convicted felon.
Dumbnuts will glue themselves to anything
causing taxpayers to pay more for dumbnut crimes.
There’s always stores to rob?
Are there any statues left?
Street names to change?
And ‘racist’ to be replaced with pronouns.
When will the ‘pronouns’ demand reparations. On and on and on!
“ I don’t think it will stop the Democrats from calling him a convicted felon.”
Of course not because they’re liars.
But it should.
It allows Trump to authoritively say it was a kangaroo court where the judge violated the Constitution just to convict him.
The Supreme Court says it was an illegal trial.
They tried to put him in jail in an illegal trial.
That’s a good talking point.
Thank you SCOTUS. You need to do more, far more. But this is a good beginning. This nation is under attack. We need you help in beating back that attack. This is war.
We need judicial reform.
If a pro-life grandmother has to spend $ millions to defend her right to free speech, that right is violated.
“I don’t think it will stop the Democrats from calling him a convicted felon.”
Juries can award big money for defamation.
Defamation doesn’t apply to public figures. If it did, Biden and Hillary would shut this site down in a second.
Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.