OPINION: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Jonathan Turley, a legal expert and constitutional law professor, believes that there are grounds for an easy reversal of former President Donald Trump’s guilty verdict in his hush money trial. According to Turley, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case was based on false accusations, and Judge Juan Merchan possibly hindered Trump’s defense unconstitutionally. Despite this, the jury found Trump guilty on all 34 counts.
“I think the level of reversible error here really is quite considerable. It runs the waterfront of procedural to constitutional problems, including federal constitutional violations,” Turley began. “I don’t even see how you can meet the unanimity requirement in the way that this thing was instructed.”
“Yeah, they were unanimous that some crime was committed on the secondary crime, but it’s apparently between the jurors and God as to what that crime was unless there is going to be some release of a jury form. We have not seen that jury form,” he continued, referencing a document that could explain on what basis jurors found Trump guilty.
“I think that, in the end, we were going to have a reversal. I’m fairly confident of that. Now, in the New York appellate system, they have a rule for Trump. They are very good lawyers in the New York system and credible people who want the system to work the way it is designed,” Turley continued. “I am eternally an optimist. I was an optimist about a hung jury. And I’m an optimist now about the appellate judges.
“I think at some point, people will step forward and say enough. You know, hating this man is not enough to forget the lack of the evidence. And once again, I do not blame this jury. They were given instructions that made it very easy to convict. And some of them might not have seen a real option not to, given how low these standards seem,” he added.
WATCH:
Democrats may be feeling somewhat giddy now that former President Donald Trump is officially a convicted felon—for the time being—but they shouldn’t be, according to a new analysis in Politico.
Outlet op-ed editor Jamie Dettmer began his analysis by noting that, in 1960, then-GOP presidential nominee Richard Nixon opted not to potentially put the country through a “constitutional crisis” by challenging the election results in Illinois and Texas “amid credible allegations of election fraud and ballot stuffing.”
He did that because, as he told a journalist friend, Earl Mazo, “Our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis.” Had he successfully challenged the results, however, he would have defeated Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy by two Electoral College votes.
Dettmer then noted that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg ignored the decisions by his predecessor, Cyrus Vance, Jr., and federal agencies—the FEC and the DOJ—not to pursue any charges against Trump because they couldn’t find any.
“Of course, whether Bragg’s courtroom victory in securing Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover up a sex scandal will pass muster in the appeal courts is another matter — there are plenty of reputable legal experts who suspect a Trump appeal will eventually be successful,” he wrote. “Regardless, with two cases down and another three to go — federal cases in Florida and Washington, and an election-tampering case brought by a state prosecutor in Georgia — Democrats are in a triumphal mood.”
He added: “But they shouldn’t be.”
