The Trump Trial: Understanding the Case and Debunking the Myths
Plus! Does this Case Provide Opportunity for Acquittal?
Trump has been found guilty. It’s a verdict many wanted. Those who wanted Trump found guilty will defend the trial without question and will attack anyone who points out the issues. What issues you may ask? Well there are several and each one builds a case for acquittal.
If you genuinely want Trump to sit with a Guilty verdict then you should also acknowledge the holes in this trial. Not only are the flaws in this trial obvious to anyone of a legal background, but they provide opportunity for acquittal. And these issues were known to the prosecution too.
So why provide opportunities for acquittal?
It all comes down to the aim of this trial. Was it really about taking Trump to trial over his offences? Or had it more to do with tying him up for the election? Was this a case of weaponising the courts for political gain?
One of these better explains the strategies and tactics used.
When you understand the aim you will understand the methods.
“If you want to understand someone’s true intentions, ignore their words and look to their actions”
Now, let’s get on with the case…
The Court Case, New York
There have been many misunderstandings and myths with regards to the trial. These have led to people believing the trial was more unfair than it was. That being said there are still several points of concern that will allow Trump’s legal team to form a formidable challenge.
This is a long and complex issue that requires deeper knowledge to fully understand. To explain let’s start at the beginning and I’ll break it down.
The Premise for the Trial
Trump faced 34 counts of a single crime: falsifying business records in the first degree. This charge involves creating false business records with the intent to conceal or commit another crime. The secondary crime refers to a violation of New York election law 17152, which prohibits conspiring to promote or prevent someone’s public office bid by unlawful means.
To break down the specific elements of the crime, they are as follows:
- Trump created or caused false business records.
- He did so with the intent to conspire.
- The conspiracy aimed to promote someone or prevent someone from public office.
- This was achieved by unlawful means.
The jury had to unanimously agree that each of these elements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to return a guilty verdict. In simpler terms, they needed to find unanimously that Trump created or caused false business records intending to conspire to manipulate public office elections unlawfully.
The next question is about what constitutes “unlawful means.” New York election law 17152 does not specify this, implying that any illegal way used to conspire to influence someone’s bid for public office suffices. According to a 1999 US Supreme Court ruling in Richardson v. United States, for criminal cases, a jury must unanimously find that the prosecution proved each element of the crime, but they don’t need to agree on the specific method used to commit an element.
For example: in a hypothetical robbery statute, jurors might disagree on whether a knife or gun was used to threaten force, but as long as all jurors agree that force was used, the specific means don’t have to be unanimous.
Applying this to Trump’s case, jurors must unanimously agree that Trump intended to conspire through false business records, but they do not need to agree on the specific law he violated to conspire.
This is where the “4–4–4” split comes from.
Jurors might have found different unlawful means: some might cite violations of Federal Elections Campaign Act, others tax law violations, or further falsification of business records. However, following the precedent set in Richardson, as long as they unanimously agree on Trump’s intent and actions, the exact unlawful means do not need to be the same.
One important caveat is that Richardson is a federal case, while Trump’s case is at the state level, introducing some differences. Also, Richardson dealt with types of force used in a robbery, whereas Trump’s case involves different types of law violations. Despite these differences, the principle remains that unanimity is required for elements but not necessarily for the specific means.
This point is crucial because it could be a basis for an appeal by Trump, who might argue that the jury should have agreed unanimously on the specific means of the legal violations. The outcome of such an appeal remains to be seen, and it isn’t a straightforward issue.
Myth: The Judge did not divide the Jury into 4 separate groups. In fact the jury were not allowed to discuss the case without all 12 being present.
Why 34 Counts?
The 34 counts against Trump were for each of the checks, invoices, and vouchers. The breakdown consists of 11 checks, 11 invoices, and 12 vouchers, which together total 34 counts. While the charges could have been consolidated, it wasn’t necessary to do so.
Each falsified business record constitutes a separate crime, so prosecutors naturally brought as many counts as possible to increase the likelihood of securing a guilty verdict.
To clarify, the jury’s unanimous verdict was about the elements of each charge. Agreement on the specific unlawful means used to carry out the crime wasn’t unanimous and perhaps didn’t need to be. Anyone insisting otherwise might be misinformed or is just simply lying. Therefore, the unanimous verdict pertained to the crime’s elements, and future court decisions will offer more insight into resolving this debate. This issue is complex and not black-and-white, contrary to what some might believe.
Why is it called the “Hush Money” Case?
As we’ve seen with all of Trump’s cases, each is given a short nickname by the media. Examples include the classified documents case, the federal election interference case, the Georgia election interference case, and the hush money case. These names are used by the media when discussing the cases.
A more accurate name for this particular case would have been the business records case, as it primarily involves falsifying business records in the first degree. The underlying charge related to undermining the election, but the core charge remains falsifying business records.
The term “hush money” was coined by the media and became the widely recognised name for this case because it was easy for the public to understand and remember.
Laws were Made Up for Trump
No, the charges or the laws in question weren’t newly created. New York Penal Law 175.10, which covers falsifying business records in the first degree, has been in place since 1986, meaning it’s been around for almost 30 years.
The second law, New York Election Law 15172, dates back to the mid-1970s, making it even older. The questionable aspect is the use of these two laws together to form a felony charge. Multiple attorneys and professors specialising in New York election law have noted that there is no precedent for these two laws being used in conjunction, especially as a means to elevate a misdemeanour to a felony.
This doesn’t necessarily mean they can’t be used together, but it suggests the prosecution took a very creative approach in this case, charging crimes that haven’t been charged in this combination before. This is why some people believe the trial might be corrupt — it appears the prosecution was searching for a way to combine these charges uniquely, and this is likely something that could be addressed on appeal.
But they Broke the Statute of Limitations?
Yes and No. Regarding the two-year statute of limitations argument, in New York, misdemeanours have a statute of limitations of two years. This means misdemeanour charges cannot be brought against a defendant more than two years after the crime occurred. However, the charges in this case are felonies, which have a five-year statute of limitations in New York. Either way they had technically expired. But…
Trump’s payments to Michael Cohen were made in 2017, so the charges would have needed to be brought by 2022. But there were extensions due to the pandemic, and state law can pause the clock if the potential defendant is continuously out of the state. Since Trump was out of New York from 2017 to 2021 and then moved to Florida, the judge determined that the district attorney could bring the charges despite the typical five-year limit. This issue can also be raised on appeal.
Another related issue is that falsifying business records, initially a misdemeanor, has a two-year statute of limitations. District Attorney Bragg combined these charges to elevate the misdemeanour to a felony, effectively gaining an additional three years within the statute of limitations.
Why Do People Believe the Trial was Corrupt?
Ignoring the obvious reasons, Trump’s attorney requested that the judge recuse himself from the case due to a potential conflict of interest involving the judge’s daughter. She was the president and COO of Authentic Campaigns, a firm specialising in digital campaign work for Democratic political candidates.
This firm received over $2.1 million from Biden’s campaign in 2020 and more than $7.5 million from Harris’s campaign in 2019. It also worked for various Democratic governors, such as Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs, and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, as well as top PACs supporting House and Senate Democrats.
This connection raised eyebrows, further fuelled by a now-deleted post from an account once linked to the judge’s daughter, which depicted Trump behind bars. The court clarified that the account no longer belonged to her as she had deleted it over a year ago. Nevertheless, these incidents caused concern.
Additionally, the judge, Judge Mershawn, had donated a small amount to President Biden’s campaign in 2020 and to a group focused on resisting the Republican Party and Trump’s legacy.
Judge Mershawn was cautioned by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct for this donation, as it violated judicial rules. This adds to the perception of potential partisanship and financial conflict of interest involving the judge and his daughter.
Apart from personal connections, trial-related matters have raised questions. For instance, the gag order prevented Trump from speaking about members of the court while witnesses against him, such as Michael Cohen, could publicly share their views freely. This is argued to be a violation of Trump’s First Amendment rights.
Another contentious issue is the jury instruction debacle previously discussed, and there’s a theory that the prosecution is a form of election interference, which will be discussed later.
Speculation also arose about the judge banning testimony from former Federal Election Commission chairman Bradley Smith. In reality, Trump wanted Smith to testify on election-related matters. In March, Judge Mershawn ruled that Smith could provide background information about the FEC and define relevant terms but couldn’t offer an opinion on whether Trump broke federal election laws or interpret those laws. Consequently, Trump’s team decided not to call Smith as a witness due to these restrictions.
This restriction is debatable, as it’s common for experts to testify on both sides of a case. The prosecution could have also brought in their own experts to support their claims that Trump broke election laws. Despite this, the judge’s ruling limits significant parts of Smith’s testimony, feeding into the corruption narrative.
There’s also a theory that President Biden influenced the case’s proceedings. Additionally, some believe that the district attorney (DA) who brought charges against Trump, Alvin Bragg, is backed by George Soros, referencing donations Soros made to the Color of Change PAC, which supports progressive prosecutors, including D.A. Bragg, in 2021. Bragg has often highlighted his legal actions against Trump during his campaign, claiming over a hundred lawsuits.
For all these reasons, some argue the case was corrupt. This discussion leads to the question of whether the charges were created specifically for this trial. The answer is nuanced and will be addressed subsequently.
Trump Got to Choose His Jurors
This is greatly misunderstood. Here’s how jury selection works:
A group of potential jurors is brought into the courtroom, where the judge makes a brief statement about the nature of the case. The judge then asks the jurors if they believe they can be fair and impartial. Those who admit they can’t be fair and impartial are dismissed.
For the remaining jurors, a questionnaire prepared by both the defense and prosecution is distributed. This questionnaire tests for potential biases and includes questions about news sources, support for extremist groups, participation in rallies for Trump, and similar topics. Each potential juror reads their answers aloud, and attorneys, as well as the judge, can ask follow-up questions to further vet them.
Both the prosecution and the defense have 10 peremptory challenges each, allowing them to dismiss any juror without giving a reason. Additionally, both sides have an unlimited number of challenges for cause, where they must explain why a juror should be dismissed and convince the judge to grant the dismissal.
This process continues until 12 jurors and 6 alternates are selected. There is no way Trump could handpick the jury, as that would compromise the fairness and impartiality required in the jury selection process.
Was there Much Choice Given the Location?
New York is famously a Democrat state. It has been argued how Trump would not receive a fair trial in a City dominated by Political persuasions opposed to his own Republican party. Even though the jury selection was fair inside the court, many will argue there wasn’t a great choice in a barrel full of Democrat voters.
Trump’s attorneys had urged the court to postpone the trial so it could consider whether to change the venue, arguing that Trump cannot get a fair jury in New York.
But Associate Justice Lizbeth González quickly denied the motion to stop the trial after hearing arguments, and there was no further argument on the motion to change the venue permitted.
This provides yet another opportunity to appeal.
Further Opportunities for Appeal
To appeal a case, there generally needs to be a reversible error, such as improper jury instructions, improper evidence, or a violation of constitutional rights. Regarding the argument for an impartial jury, it would be challenging for Trump’s team to prove unless they can show that the judge failed to take necessary steps to ensure the jury’s impartiality.
The Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to a fair trial and an impartial jury, but it doesn’t guarantee a perfect trial or jury. While some may argue that Trump’s trial was unfair, as he has claimed, obtaining a truly fair trial in New York could be extremely difficult.
Hypothetically, if someone believes they can’t get a fair trial in a certain state, it raises the question of whether they could exploit this by committing crimes there, knowing prosecution would be biased.
Balancing this concern is complex.
One argument might be that Stormy Daniels’ testimony was more prejudicial than probative. Legally, if evidence is deemed more prejudicial than useful for proving something, it should not be admitted. However, this might not be the strongest argument available.
From a legal perspective, Trump’s attorneys might have stronger arguments with the jury instructions or a potential violation of Trump’s Sixth Amendment rights. The jury instruction argument would assert that the jury should have been required to unanimously agree on the underlying unlawful means of the charge, which we’ve discussed earlier.
The Sixth Amendment argument could be based on the claim that Trump was deprived of his right to fully understand the charges against him. A particularly questionable aspect of this case is that the prosecution did not specify the unlawful means used to carry out the conspiracy until right before closing arguments.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees that criminal defendants have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them before the trial begins, which allows them to properly defend themselves.
This confusion was due to the prosecution not making the charges clear from the start which opens themselves up to challenge. Surely this is a rookie error?
Therefore, Trump’s argument could be that the DA’s failure to disclose the unlawful means early on and the judge’s failure to require the prosecution to specify them violated his Sixth Amendment rights. This could potentially be his strongest argument on appeal and I believe the most likely to occur.
Final Thoughts
In my opinion this would not have come to trial had it not been for Trump running for office. The convenient timing and creative manufacturing of charges to be legally relevant and unprecedented have only exposed the true intentions behind this case.
Trump’s guilt or innocence is not even relevant. If it was then the trial would have ensured a tighter case without revealing so many strong opportunities for appeal. I simply fail to believe that of all the intelligent prosecution involved, they could not have done so if permitted greater time and planning. But time they did not have given the election later this year.
The case now is under scrutiny allowing for Trump to seek acquittal. And there’s every chance he can do so.
Equally this doesn’t prevent him from becoming President in Office once again. So if the case can’t prevent his presidency and provides opportunities for equittal, what was the point?
Maybe it was expected to have a greater reaction on votes. Possibly it was expected to boost Biden in the run up to the election. I can’t be sure but there is strong evidence to suggest this.
What is certain is how ineptly the case was formed against Trump to secure a Guilty verdict. Some will consider the methods smart but how clever can they be if the case falls. While successful the jury is still out as to how long it will hold.
Either way, I hope I’ve provided a better understanding of the case to form your own conclusions. I’d love to hear them.
Thanks for reading.
