Law Professor Destroys Trump Guilty Verdict

( – A legal expert has criticized the jury’s guilty verdict in the Donald Trump hush money case, citing a number of problems with the lawsuit itself. Yale professor of law Jed Rubenfeld used his podcast, “Straight Down the Middle”, to set out a number of options Trump’s team still has in fighting the verdict.

Rubenfeld took care to explain that while a New York jury has found Trump guilty on 34 counts relating to alleged hush money, the former president cannot be considered a convicted felon until the judge also delivers a guilty verdict. He added that it was highly unlikely, however, that Judge Juan Merchan would issue an acquittal on the day of sentencing. While Merchan is expected to hand down a guilty verdict on July 11 when he issues his sentence, which could include jailtime, Trump would still have options.

According to the professor, Trump’s legal team could file a lawsuit against District Attorney Alvin Bragg along with other actors who brought the case. Trump could then ask a federal judge for a temporary restraining order that would prevent Merchan from issuing a judgment of guilt immediately. Instead, Merchan would have to allow for federal courts to examine the case and the constitutional arguments surrounding it.

In Rubenfeld’s opinion, the problems with the case and verdict are serious and clear. He expressed his concern that the case could be politically motivated, with the prosecutors and judge being “members of the opposing party”. He also said that it was still “unclear” what crime Trump is convicted of, as paying hush money to cover up an alleged affair is not illegal. Instead, Trump was accused of covering up the hush money in order to conceal another crime. The nature of this second crime has remained a mystery, in direct contravention of the Sixth Amendment. Every defendant has the right under the American Constitution to know what crimes he has been accused of committing.

The appeals process as outlined by Rubenfeld could take years to complete, and should the guilty verdict be rescinded upon appeal, Trump and the presidential election process would still have suffered “irreparable harm”. He added that an unlawful conviction against a presidential candidate in an election year could be viewed as election interference.

Copyright 2024,