Posted on 05/01/2024 9:54:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case against Donald Trump had already hit a few snags, but now, Judge Merchan may have made a critical error that could reverse the Trump verdict upon appeal by allowing prosecutors to make certain arguments, according to GWU University law professor Jonathan Turley.
During an appearance on “Fox & Friends,” Turley suggested that New York Judge Juan Merchan made a mistake by allowing Bragg's prosecutorial team, which is being led by former Biden administration official Michael Colangelo, to say unequivocally that Trump was involved in federal election law violations.
“I got to tell you, I think this judge may have already committed reversible error,” Turley told Fox News. “He could try to amend it, he could try to change it in his instructions, but that jury has now been told repeatedly that there are federal election crimes here, strongly suggesting that the payment to Stormy Daniels did violate federal election laws. That’s just not true.”
The Daily Caller has more.
The New York Court of Appeals ruled in a 4-3 decision Thursday that the “erroneously admitted” testimony about unrelated incidents and other actions by the judge presiding over the rape trial of disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein were “egregious errors” that required a new trial.
Turley also previewed testimony from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who is expected to be a star witness for the prosecution, earlier in his appearance.
“Michael Cohen is literally going to tell that jury, ‘Please send my client to jail for following my legal advice,’” Turley continued. “All of the stuff that they are talking about, he set up, he structured this and told his client that ‘we could do this.’ It’s a bizarre moment.”
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
The Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett similarly cited Weinstein’s conviction being overturned as precedent for Trump’s potential conviction being overturned.
“Nothing in the courtroom last week dealt with the actual charges. None of the witnesses actually testified about any relevant crime recognized by law,” Jarrett explained to “Fox and Friends” co-host Steve Doocy. “Instead, it was sort of this weird kabuki theater or theater of the absurd, Steve. I mean, David Pecker, who ran the National Enquirer, was on the witness stand most of the week and told us what we already knew. The tabloid was sleazy, promoting and killing stories.”
“But that’s not a crime. Paying people for their silence is not a crime. Influencing an election is not a crime, either. That’s what campaigns are designed to do,” Jarrett continued.
“Yet, Alvin Bragg’s legal minions in court keep using the words ‘conspiracy’ and ‘fraud.’ Well, Trump hasn’t been charged with that, so this hairbrain prosecution is exactly what Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch warned about during the immunity hearing last week.”
I thought the point was he could win on appeal, but he needs to win at trial?
Understand, the purpose of this trial is to get a conviction, period. They don’t care if it gets thrown out on appeal, all they want is the to be able to drone on day after day in the press that he is a convicted felon, that’s it.
They don’t care if it will be thrown out on appeal, just get a conviction so they can broadcast that day and night for weeks or months... that’s it.
Is the defense also rewarded with new a new trial when it makes a grave error?
I personally think it is an error to analyze this case on legal merits.
There is only one purpose to all of this.
That is to harass and damage Trump by any means possible. Damage his reputation, damage him financially, hamper his campaign efforts, damage his physical or mental health.
The legal merits of this or any other cases is irrelevant.
most likely outcome is hung jury, 2nd more likely outcome is guilty of misdemeanor and innocent of felony and ordered to pay a small fine and we move on.
an innocent man does not need saving.
in a corrupt world, innocents will be put on trial.
They have no case here, Trump is not guilty. The only question is the quality of the jurors to see the obvious.
The misdemeanor is barred by statute of limitations. No felony no conviction.
Bingo! Laws be damn! The corrupt judges know no freaking laws….the judicial branch says, “LAWS? We need no stinkin laws!” SOB’s!!
Legally the judge can’t even allow the jury to decide the case.
I don’t even know how he concocts jury instruction for the law.
Saying he influenced an election illegally but providing no statute that was violated while influencing said election? How can a jury decide a case without a law. What law are they supposed to apply the evidence to??
This is CRAZY.
And then there’s Jury nullification. But that requires the ability to think independently.
If it amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel rising to a violation of the Sixth Amendment, yes.
If he is convicted and it is later thrown out, does that mean that he is no longer considered a “convicted felon?”
If the answer to that question is “yes,” then if the media thereafter continues to broadcast that he is a convicted felon, would that not then open them up to libel, slander, and/or defamation to a Trump-friendly court?
“I personally think it is an error to analyze this case on legal merits.”
Amen. Legal merits have nothing to do with the case or with its outcome. He will be convicted by a NY jury regardless of law or facts. No NY judge will reverse regardless of law or facts.
That’s the point of bringing a ridiculous case in NY city.
It would be like trying HRC in rural Texas. Conviction guaranteed.
Yes if conviction is overturned then conviction is voided b ur it won’t undo the weeks and likely months that they can say “convicted felon” every time they mentioned his name… that’s all this nonsense is about.
“Saying he influenced an election illegally but providing no statute that was violated while influencing said election? How can a jury decide a case without a law. What law are they supposed to apply the evidence to??”
Don’t get too hung up on this.
Prosecuting a black man for raping a white woman in rural Mississippi in 1868 had little to do with law or facts.
Same strategy here. Try someone you hate in a place where everyone already intensely dislikes him and thinks he is guilty of something or the other. And then throw a bunch of feces up against the wall. Law and facts don’t matter much.
You have a judge who is either scared to buck the hatred or he is caught up in the lynching enthusiasm and a jury that is ready to lynch.
Merchan is way out of his league. What a fool.
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.