Legal Experts Show Path For Trump To Appeal Hush Money Verdict

Former President Donald Trump has a series of legal arguments in his quest for an appeal of the guilty verdicts in his hush money trial that involved adult film star Stormy Daniels.

There are three issues that legal scholars believe the former president can use to make his case, The Washington Times reported.

“Former President Donald Trump has three key issues he can argue on appeal to overturn his conviction in his New York hush money trial, including that prosecutors never identified an underlying felony to the resurrected misdemeanor bookkeeping charges that had lapsed,” the report said.

“The other two issues for appeal involve boundless character testimony prejudicial to Mr. Trump and prejudicial evidence that the trial judge allowed to be admitted, such as testimony about the infamous ‘Access Hollywood’ tape,” it said.

“Legal scholars say a defendant’s right to a fair trial and due process is undermined when the specific charge they are facing is not spelled out for them to defend properly,” it said.

Some legal experts believe that is what happened when Judge Juan Merchan informed the jury that they did not need to find the former president guilty unanimously of committing a felony in order to bring back the misdemeanor bookkeeping charges that expired under the statue of limitations.

“The issue of the absence of a second crime is exactly the kind of legal question that would be prime for appellate review,” said former Justice Department official and University of California professor John Yoo said.

South Texas College of Law Houston professor Thomas Hogan said that an appeals court would be suspect of the jury instructions.

“The fact that the prosecution has not been forced to identify specifically the underlying crime that would make this business records case a felony — and the jurors apparently are each permitted to choose their own underlying crime, with no unanimity required — certainly would get a skeptical look from an appellate court,” the professor said.

And some experts believe that the detailed account of sexual relations that Daniels presented to the court could also be an issue.

“The amount of character evidence admitted on unrelated matters is a fundamental problem for appellate courts,” Hogan said.

In June Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz said that he believes the former president can fast track the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The retired law professor advised President Trump’s legal team to hasten their appeal so that the New York Court of Appeals, the highest level of the New York state court system and the court that hears appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court, can hear it.

However, he noted that appeals to this court are not guaranteed; they typically necessitate approval either from the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court or directly from the New York Court of Appeals itself.

“He should make an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals asking them to bypass the Appellate Division because he’s not going to get justice in the Appellate Division,” Dershowitz said, going on to say that those judges are elected are likely more concerned about electorate blowback if they find in favor of Trump.

“The Appellate Division or Manhattan judges that are elected and they don’t want to have to face their families and say you were the judge who allowed Trump to become the next President of the United States. They don’t want to be Dershowitz’ed,” he said, referring to blowback he received after defending the then-president in his first impeachment trial in the Senate.

“They don’t want to be treated in New York, the way I have been treated in Martha’s Vineyard and Harvard and New York because I defended Donald Trump, so they should skip the Appellate Division,” he continued.

Trump’s attorneys should directly petition the highest appeals court in New York state and request an expedited process to bring their case before the Supreme Court, Dershowitz said.

“Go to the New York Court of Appeals, ask for an expedited appeal. In the meantime, prepare for an expedited appeal in the United States Supreme Court and say that this was a rush to try to get this case, a verdict of conviction before the election, and the Supreme Court of the United States has an obligation to review this case before the election so that the American public knows whether or not Donald Trump is guilty or not guilty of these made up crimes,” he noted.

The professor said Trump’s team should argue two points: 1) “the state’s highest court recently reversed Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction because the trial judge prejudicially allowed testimony on allegations unrelated to the case,” and 2) “the judge allegedly didn’t instruct the jury properly on why prosecutors didn’t call former Trump Organization CFO Alan Weisselberg to testify in the case.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *