Yale Law Professor Shreds Trump Verdict, Cites "Serious" Constitutional Problems

Yale Law Professor Shreds Trump Verdict, Cites "Serious" Constitutional Problems

"Trump would sue District Attorney Bragg and other state actors and ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt..."

I'd like to see that.

Three Big problems:

• Selective Prosecution: 'The possibility that the prosecution was driven by political motives against Trump, which if true, could constitute selective prosecution—a practice deemed unconstitutional as it involves targeting an individual for prosecution based on discriminatory reasons.'
  
  
• Vagueness of Charges: 'The indictment did not specify the object crime Trump was accused of concealing through falsified business records, potentially violating the Sixth Amendment right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.'
  
  
• Non-unanimous Jury Verdict: 'The judge's instruction allowing the jury to be non-unanimous regarding the specifics of the secondary crime could infringe upon the constitutional requirement for unanimous verdicts in criminal prosecutions, challenging the fairness of the trial.'
  

Those are 3 very big issues.

The 6th amendment guarantees that we will be fully informed of the acts the State is claiming to be a crime for which they will seek conviction.

Trump's not a convicted felon until the Judge enters judgement of guilt. Trump may want to file a restraining order to prevent that.

Read the whole thing and discuss.

 

Even though this guy's story is all over the internet telling us what we've already been told by other law professors, there will be people on this board who won't clink on the link because they don't like zerohedge, and if they do, they won't watch the video because they say YouTube is for children.

 

Doesn't matter. Only source that the die hard left take serious are sources that confirm their bias. Unless you can get rachel maddow to agree, these super libs won't budge. Many are completely devoid of any independent thought.

 

Dr Phil and Rod Phelan.... just another opinion by an experienced lawyer....

Excellent interview.... the case was "stillborn"

Trump Verdict: A Judicial Travesty with Rod Phelan

 

Don't worry, they are gonna choke on that lawfare, Just watch. Things will get very interesting now that we know lawfare is "legal"

 

Media hype doesn't matter, no matter how many who insist that the perp is above the law parrot it.

If they don't serve Trump's agenda, he and his lickspittles lash out at certified democratic elections, the American justice system, and law enforcement agencies.

The sexual abuser is a felon convicted on 34 counts be a jury of his peers, and concocting reasons for appeal is his only hope, however feeble.

 

No one says Trump is above the law just that DA's cannot invent crimes and charge people with things without telling him what those things are.

 

I didn’t know it was not a unanimous jury. I thought they always had to be unanimous.

 

If the Trumpy victim-card flailing and insistence that officers of the court are being mean to the convicted felon has any merit, it will be the basis of an appeal.

The whining by his lickspittles is of no legal merit.

 

They were unanimous about the charges they convicted. They just didn't have to be unanimous about underlying theories.

 

Hang on - when did University professors get converted from liberal whack jobs to people we should respect? A couple of days away from PF and it seems the rules have changed!

 

If the lick spittles supporting this corrupt administration and it's lawfare BS would act as decent instead of vengeful little children worried that their toys were about to be taken away we wouldn't have a need for this conversation.

 

The toadies' whining that a senile criminal mastermind who defeated the Loser in 2020 is concocting all the evidence against him, all the sworn testimony, manipulating all the judges, all the special counsels, all the prosecutors, all the grand juries and juries in all the diverse legal venues in which he has been indicted is such a sad, paranoid repudiation of America's justice system, in the aftermath of the repudiation of a certified democratic election, and of our law enforcement agencies.

The fantasy that there is a ubiquitous Big Blue Meanie continuously poking the sexual abuser's big fat bum is quite addled.

​

 

This makes 3, count 'em, 3 law professors who have serious problems with this case. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the all-seeing and all-knowing libs without a law degree disagree with them.

 

I’m lost. You obviously know more about the details than I do. I also didn’t know that theories needed to be judged by a jury. Are you saying this prosecution was based on presumptive theories that were decided on by the jury?

 

The ridiculousness of the above is self evident to all but the lamest of partisans.

 

The crimes he was charged with require an underlying additional crime in order to be a felony. The underlying crime does not have to be charged. There were three potential underlying crimes. The judge said they didn't have to be unanimous about WHICH underlying crime was committed, just that one was committed. They still had to be unanimous about the actual crimes being charged.

Think of it like this: they were told they had to be unanimous THAT someone took a bribe but not unanimous about why.

 

What theories were those? They can not try a person without charges written up in the indictment.

 

The charges were written in the indictment. He was convicted of the charges listed in the indictment.

 

That makes sense. So if they did rule that there was another underlying additional crime why didn’t they mention it with the actual charge? You would think they would. Really think the only thing I agree with this guy on is selective persecution. I believe it’s very evident none of these charges would have been pursued if not for his political status. I think anyone claiming otherwise is being dishonest with themselves

 

It's a common thing in stuff like this and RICO charges, where the underlying crime doesn't have to be charged. Works the same way for felony murder here in Texas, I believe. And there is an open question about whether the underlying crime can be federal. From what I've read, there is precedence against Trump here. Regardless, I agree this is the weakest case against him and it may well be overturned in appeal. I have no beef if it is.

 

Which is not only unconstitutional it is absurd.

 

Neither.