6 ms·

Do you know if the Federal Supreme Court has the power to overturn this conviction? It’s always felt like the power of SCOTUS is absolute and that they wouldn’t

Do you know if the Federal Supreme Court has the power to overturn this conviction? It’s always felt like the power of SCOTUS is absolute and that they wouldn’t hesitate to issue such an order if a case is brought before them.

maxerickson 2y ago
They would have to gin up an argument that the New York statute about truthful business records was incompatible with the Constitution. (They can't just wave their hands and change the result, they have to say that the laws can't exist)
- leereeves 2y ago
  And there would be clear grounds to do so, if the state courts rule that it's not necessary to clearly identify, prove, and (most importantly) allow a defense against, the alleged second crime that is an essential element of these charges (without which the charges are only misdemeanors). That is obviously a violation of due process, punishing someone for an uncharged and unproven second crime. But that's what was done in this case, under the DA's by all accounts "novel legal theory". --- Edit: I'm "posting too fast" so I'll respond here. You pointed out that the statute doesn't require proof of the second crime. I agree, it does not. And that's precisely why the SC could declare it unconstitutional - it punishes an alleged second crime (by elevating the first crime to a felony with more serious penalties) without providing for due process in the prosecution of that second crime. And I just read about a second reason the SC could overturn the case: "The Supreme Court has long held, under a doctrine known as the “rule of lenity,” that “fair warning should be given to the world, in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.” Thus, when the meaning of a criminal statute is unclear, the Constitution sometimes requires that statute to be read narrowly because an unclear criminal law did not give potential defendants “fair warning” that their conduct was illegal." "if the current slate of justices decide that they must have the final word on whether Bragg may prosecute Trump, they could easily invoke the rule of lenity to justify asserting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the case." https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictm...
  - maxerickson 2y ago
    "and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime" That doesn't really seem to require that the second crime is charged, or demand some certain level of proof (it just says "intent to commit another crime"). I guess I agree that if you wanted to make sure the felony stuck you'd charge the second crime in an attempt to establish that intent, but the statute doesn't really spell that out.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      And in general, "The defendant had intent to commit another crime" is, in this context, a finding of fact that is in the jury's court. Successful commission of the crime is not required. Nor is it required that the jury all agree on what other crime was attempted. If the prosecution makes the case that the defendant tried to commit 12 other crimes and each member of the jury thinks intent on a different crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they are well within their conscience to convict.
      - leereeves 2y ago
        It's strange how you're both listing the ways this statute denies the accused due process as if that made the law valid. As if merely saying that this law doesn't require due process makes it so. To me, those are all the reasons this law is unconstitutional. New York shouldn't be able to simply write a law that ignores due process in the prosecution of some other alleged crime. Put aside your feelings about Trump and ask yourself if that's a situation you'd like to find yourself in: accused of a laundry list of crimes and convicted even if the jury doesn't agree on which one you committed.
        shadowgovt 2y ago
        The jury all agree he committed a crime while attempting to commit another crime. They don't have to agree on what what crime, precisely, he was attempting to commit. Due process doesn't really enter into it because he wasn't accused of successfully accomplishing the other crime, merely of attempting one. This is, to give an analogy, in the same space as OJ Simpson being found guilty of wrongful death and innocent of murder, for committing the same actions, and the fact that he could be tried for both not being a case of double jeopardy.

maxerickson 2y ago

They would have to gin up an argument that the New York statute about truthful business records was incompatible with the Constitution. (They can't just wave their hands and change the result, they have to say that the laws can't exist)

leereeves 2y ago
And there would be clear grounds to do so, if the state courts rule that it's not necessary to clearly identify, prove, and (most importantly) allow a defense against, the alleged second crime that is an essential element of these charges (without which the charges are only misdemeanors). That is obviously a violation of due process, punishing someone for an uncharged and unproven second crime. But that's what was done in this case, under the DA's by all accounts "novel legal theory". --- Edit: I'm "posting too fast" so I'll respond here. You pointed out that the statute doesn't require proof of the second crime. I agree, it does not. And that's precisely why the SC could declare it unconstitutional - it punishes an alleged second crime (by elevating the first crime to a felony with more serious penalties) without providing for due process in the prosecution of that second crime. And I just read about a second reason the SC could overturn the case: "The Supreme Court has long held, under a doctrine known as the “rule of lenity,” that “fair warning should be given to the world, in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed.” Thus, when the meaning of a criminal statute is unclear, the Constitution sometimes requires that statute to be read narrowly because an unclear criminal law did not give potential defendants “fair warning” that their conduct was illegal." "if the current slate of justices decide that they must have the final word on whether Bragg may prosecute Trump, they could easily invoke the rule of lenity to justify asserting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the case." https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictment-supreme-court-stormy-daniels-manhattan-alvin-bragg https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/4/23648390/trump-indictm...
- maxerickson 2y ago
  "and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime" That doesn't really seem to require that the second crime is charged, or demand some certain level of proof (it just says "intent to commit another crime"). I guess I agree that if you wanted to make sure the felony stuck you'd charge the second crime in an attempt to establish that intent, but the statute doesn't really spell that out.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    And in general, "The defendant had intent to commit another crime" is, in this context, a finding of fact that is in the jury's court. Successful commission of the crime is not required. Nor is it required that the jury all agree on what other crime was attempted. If the prosecution makes the case that the defendant tried to commit 12 other crimes and each member of the jury thinks intent on a different crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they are well within their conscience to convict.
    - leereeves 2y ago
      It's strange how you're both listing the ways this statute denies the accused due process as if that made the law valid. As if merely saying that this law doesn't require due process makes it so. To me, those are all the reasons this law is unconstitutional. New York shouldn't be able to simply write a law that ignores due process in the prosecution of some other alleged crime. Put aside your feelings about Trump and ask yourself if that's a situation you'd like to find yourself in: accused of a laundry list of crimes and convicted even if the jury doesn't agree on which one you committed.
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        The jury all agree he committed a crime while attempting to commit another crime. They don't have to agree on what what crime, precisely, he was attempting to commit. Due process doesn't really enter into it because he wasn't accused of successfully accomplishing the other crime, merely of attempting one. This is, to give an analogy, in the same space as OJ Simpson being found guilty of wrongful death and innocent of murder, for committing the same actions, and the fact that he could be tried for both not being a case of double jeopardy.