A number of legal scholars & experts are quoted here agreeing that NY Law was broken and DJT can appeal on a number of reasons to throw this kangaroo case out. I say certainly #1, #2, & #5 should be plenty.
Gator, which one do you like best? I'll wait for it... 🤣
Many have criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s decision to bring the case in the first place, especially for not specifying the underlying crime President Trump allegedly sought to commit while falsifying documents.
1. Felony falsification of business records requires the fraud to be carried out to commit or conceal another crime.
Mr. Bragg has said that “the indictment doesn’t specify the other crime because the law does not so require.”
John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told The Epoch Times he didn’t think the indictment was “constitutionally acceptable.” “The indictment seemed intentionally vague, so much so that Bragg, not the grand jury, submitted a separate statement of facts,” Mr. Shu said.
This was the key aspect of the case that allowed Mr. Bragg to raise the charges to felonies rather than misdemeanors. It also allowed him to bring the case years after the statute of limitations for misdemeanors had expired.
3. Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig wrote in New York Magazine that the case was like “Frankenstein” in that it was “cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator.”
4. The somewhat ambiguous nature of the prosecution spilled over into how Justice Merchan instructed the jury to reach a verdict. Jurors were instructed that they didn’t have to unanimously agree on the unlawful conduct that President Trump allegedly committed in an attempt to influence the 2016 election—only that he caused one of three forms.
Heritage Foundation Vice President John Malcolm doubted whether the jury instructions complied with New York law. “I think [President Trump’s] got a reasonable argument that … the judge’s instruction violated New York law,” he told The Epoch Times.
Mr. Shu similarly criticized the jury instructions as generally overbroad and vague.
5. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who said the trial had “multiple layers of reversible error,” also questioned Justice Merchan’s rulings during the trial. “In watching Merchan in the courtroom, I was shocked by his rulings as at times incomprehensible and conflicted,” Mr. Turley wrote for The Hill.
Testimony from the prosecution’s primary witnesses—were cited by attorneys as grounds for appeal. In Mr. Cohen’s testimony, he acknowledged to previously pleading guilty to federal election crimes related to the alleged payoff to Ms. Clifford. The prosecution then used that as a basis to allege federal election violations had occurred.
6. Meanwhile, the court prevented former Federal Election Commission Chair Brad Smith from testifying on whether President Trump violated campaign finance laws.
“It’s distinctly unfair,” Mr. Shu said, for Justice Merchan to allow Mr. Cohen to testify on federal campaign finance issues but to then deny President Trump the chance to dispute the legal basis of Mr. Cohen’s testimony with an expert witness, Mr. Smith, who is a law professor and former FEC chairman.
Gator, which one do you like best? I'll wait for it... 🤣
Many have criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s decision to bring the case in the first place, especially for not specifying the underlying crime President Trump allegedly sought to commit while falsifying documents.
1. Felony falsification of business records requires the fraud to be carried out to commit or conceal another crime.
Mr. Bragg has said that “the indictment doesn’t specify the other crime because the law does not so require.”
John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told The Epoch Times he didn’t think the indictment was “constitutionally acceptable.” “The indictment seemed intentionally vague, so much so that Bragg, not the grand jury, submitted a separate statement of facts,” Mr. Shu said.
This was the key aspect of the case that allowed Mr. Bragg to raise the charges to felonies rather than misdemeanors. It also allowed him to bring the case years after the statute of limitations for misdemeanors had expired.
3. Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig wrote in New York Magazine that the case was like “Frankenstein” in that it was “cobbled together with ill-fitting parts into an ugly, awkward, but more-or-less functioning contraption that just might ultimately turn on its creator.”
4. The somewhat ambiguous nature of the prosecution spilled over into how Justice Merchan instructed the jury to reach a verdict. Jurors were instructed that they didn’t have to unanimously agree on the unlawful conduct that President Trump allegedly committed in an attempt to influence the 2016 election—only that he caused one of three forms.
Heritage Foundation Vice President John Malcolm doubted whether the jury instructions complied with New York law. “I think [President Trump’s] got a reasonable argument that … the judge’s instruction violated New York law,” he told The Epoch Times.
Mr. Shu similarly criticized the jury instructions as generally overbroad and vague.
5. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who said the trial had “multiple layers of reversible error,” also questioned Justice Merchan’s rulings during the trial. “In watching Merchan in the courtroom, I was shocked by his rulings as at times incomprehensible and conflicted,” Mr. Turley wrote for The Hill.
Testimony from the prosecution’s primary witnesses—were cited by attorneys as grounds for appeal. In Mr. Cohen’s testimony, he acknowledged to previously pleading guilty to federal election crimes related to the alleged payoff to Ms. Clifford. The prosecution then used that as a basis to allege federal election violations had occurred.
6. Meanwhile, the court prevented former Federal Election Commission Chair Brad Smith from testifying on whether President Trump violated campaign finance laws.
“It’s distinctly unfair,” Mr. Shu said, for Justice Merchan to allow Mr. Cohen to testify on federal campaign finance issues but to then deny President Trump the chance to dispute the legal basis of Mr. Cohen’s testimony with an expert witness, Mr. Smith, who is a law professor and former FEC chairman.
