- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
for the appeal of his conviction? They stated that the states of Missouri and Louisiana didn’t show that they were harmed by the disinformation campaign by the Biden administration, and therefore had no claim in federal court. Though not in federal court, how can the city of New York claim they were harmed by alleged federal election law violations, when the feds didn’t prosecute?
Seemed a bogus case to begin with, but now the defense seems to be armed with pretty persuasive precedent.
-
Legally speaking, Trump has an almost comical number of “outs” for his appeal, but that might not matter. The Supreme Court won’t get involved unless there are Constitutional or Federal issues, and there don’t appear to be, which means the New York State Appeals Court will be Trump’s last, best possibility. They’ve been friendly to Trump in the past (civil fraud case), and they do occasionally issue some bizarre rulings (Weinstein conviction overturned).
Strongest areas for appeal:
- Novel use of the state involved, involving untested legal theory, particularly since Feds turned it down. Basically had to conflate a misdemeanor with a felony, so possible errors allowing the DA to use a federal campaign finance law. Probably his best bet. This is the one area that the USSC might get involved.
- Instructions to the jury were bizarre. They required a unanimous verdict, but not the means used to accomplish it. Basically, the judge gave each juror the choice of three crimes, and they could individually choose which one made sense to them.
- Possibility that there might be issues involving Daniels; e.g., testimony by Daniels was unusually lenient and unduly prejudiced the 12 Democrat jurors against Trump.
- Was there enough evidence to convict?
There are other areas; e.g., timing of the trial, publicity,
Harvard law prof Alan Dershowitz had three interesting observations: first, that the jury was supposed to oversee the biased judge and prosecutor, and they didn’t so they got it completely wrong and rendered a verdict consistent with everyone’s political views. He thinks it was a predetermined outcome, claiming that the judge’s rulings and instructions allowed in prejudicial evidence. Said it was the weakest case he’d ever seen. He also noted that noted liar Cohen was the only one who testified to the crucial fact that Trump knew about it.
Second, that Judge Bragg didn’t want to bring this case and was politically pressured to bring it.
Third, that Dershowitz says it won’t be reversed on appeal. It has to go through the New York system and no New York judge will want to be responsible for overturning this decision.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.