[Labyrinthos]

“I guess. I was watching the threads last week and dont recall the case or certainly the implications during last fridays case dump. Usually some good Freeper analysis would have headlined this sooner.”

I should have headlined this. I read the case as it was released last Friday and immediately realized the significance. (The MSM missed the significance because the average reporter is dumb as a rock and the SCOTUS opinion did not specifically reference Trump.)

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. Or if, Trump is somehow able to fast Track the case to the SCOTUS, the Court could summarily reverse and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with Erlinger vs United States.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, corrupt liberal judges in NY will probably ignore Erlinger vs United States and allow the conviction to stand.

[Magnum44]

Thank you. And your informed comments reinforce my gut instinct.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

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.

Is it possible that a reversal could take that long anyway?

[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.