4 ms·

For it to really be "decided" SCOTUS would need to weigh in. Case law is is as you say based on precedent. And the higher the court that decided the stronger th

by Rapzid 2y ago

For it to really be "decided" SCOTUS would need to weigh in. Case law is is as you say based on precedent. And the higher the court that decided the stronger the precedent. A conviction that hasn't even started the appeals process isn't much to go on.

ok_dad 2y ago
Which of Trump’s rights were violated for SCOTUS to grant cert? Otherwise, this is legal case law today which will be referenced in the future no doubt.
- Rapzid 2y ago
  I'm going to have to wait and see what his defense comes up with just like everyone else haha.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
This doesn't really make much sense in this specific case. It was a state court, and he was found guilty of a state crime. While state decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court, it requires that some Constitutional or some violation of other federal law be in question. I haven't seen anyone argue that in this case, even Trump's biggest supporters. Contrast that with the Jan 6th case, which is a federal case and is currently before the Supreme Court.
- Rapzid 2y ago
  Sure, New York Supreme Court then. But SCOTUS still weighs in on matters of federal law and constitution which I'm sure will come up from Trump's legal team. Case law is case law. The point was we haven't even gotten started yet on "deciding" anything.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    I don't see any non-frivolous argument that can be made here. Federal law doesn't preempt state criminal law (you can in fact be tried in both federal and state court for the same offense), and I have a hard time seeing any constitutional claim that can be pressed here (especially one that isn't precluded by defense failing to object).
throwup238 2y ago
This was a state criminal case, not a federal one. It will go through the New York state appeal courts and end up in New York Supreme Court. IANAL but based on the commentary I've read, if SCOTUS overrules the state court's decision, all hell breaks loose legally speaking. That said, SCOTUS has a very liberal interpretation of the concept of precedent so anything is possible.
- loeg 2y ago
  > It will go through the New York state appeal courts and end up in New York Supreme Court. Nitpicking: New York's court nomenclature is super weird. "Supreme Courts" are their ordinary trial courts. Their highest level court is the Court of Appeals.
- jfengel 2y ago
  The Supreme Court could rule that the law itself is unconstitutional. Or it could rule that the trial was invalidly performed. That would overturn the conviction, though prosecution could be brought again. As you note, either of these would cause all hell to break loose. Last week I would have said that it was nonetheless certain. Today, noting that the court decided not to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I'm far less sure. They have no specific love for the man, even if I still think they're likely to act in a partisan manner in general.
  - dukeofdoom 2y ago
    Just one example of why this might be overturned. Typically (almost always) the defence has the last word to the jury. (presumption of innocence). In this case the judge let the prosecution go last. Why is this a problem? The prosecution did not reveal the second crime (they gave a set of possible crimes) needed to elevate the misdemeanour to a felony, until they spoke at the end. So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken. And the set of those laws were only revealed to the jury at the last moment. Literally denying the defence a legal opportunity to respond to the laws that the defendant was alleged to have broken. Breaking law A = misdemeanour Breaking law A + another law = Felony Prosecution never revealed the other law Trump was alleged to have broken until closing arguments. Trial is about breaking law A. But closing arguments are about breaking law A in combination with another law. The prosecution gave a set of possible other laws at closing arguments, in which they went last. The judge instructed the jury that they can individually select which other law they think Trump broke. How can this possibly be a fair trail process, when you can defend yourself for breaking law A, but get punished for breaking laws A + X. In which X is not revealed to you during the proceedings of the trail, but only to the jury at the last moment.

by Rapzid 2y ago

ok_dad 2y ago

Which of Trump’s rights were violated for SCOTUS to grant cert? Otherwise, this is legal case law today which will be referenced in the future no doubt.

Rapzid 2y ago
I'm going to have to wait and see what his defense comes up with just like everyone else haha.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

This doesn't really make much sense in this specific case. It was a state court, and he was found guilty of a state crime. While state decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court, it requires that some Constitutional or some violation of other federal law be in question. I haven't seen anyone argue that in this case, even Trump's biggest supporters. Contrast that with the Jan 6th case, which is a federal case and is currently before the Supreme Court.

Rapzid 2y ago
Sure, New York Supreme Court then. But SCOTUS still weighs in on matters of federal law and constitution which I'm sure will come up from Trump's legal team. Case law is case law. The point was we haven't even gotten started yet on "deciding" anything.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jcranmer 2y ago
  I don't see any non-frivolous argument that can be made here. Federal law doesn't preempt state criminal law (you can in fact be tried in both federal and state court for the same offense), and I have a hard time seeing any constitutional claim that can be pressed here (especially one that isn't precluded by defense failing to object).

throwup238 2y ago

This was a state criminal case, not a federal one. It will go through the New York state appeal courts and end up in New York Supreme Court. IANAL but based on the commentary I've read, if SCOTUS overrules the state court's decision, all hell breaks loose legally speaking. That said, SCOTUS has a very liberal interpretation of the concept of precedent so anything is possible.

loeg 2y ago
> It will go through the New York state appeal courts and end up in New York Supreme Court. Nitpicking: New York's court nomenclature is super weird. "Supreme Courts" are their ordinary trial courts. Their highest level court is the Court of Appeals.
jfengel 2y ago
The Supreme Court could rule that the law itself is unconstitutional. Or it could rule that the trial was invalidly performed. That would overturn the conviction, though prosecution could be brought again. As you note, either of these would cause all hell to break loose. Last week I would have said that it was nonetheless certain. Today, noting that the court decided not to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, I'm far less sure. They have no specific love for the man, even if I still think they're likely to act in a partisan manner in general.
- dukeofdoom 2y ago
  Just one example of why this might be overturned. Typically (almost always) the defence has the last word to the jury. (presumption of innocence). In this case the judge let the prosecution go last. Why is this a problem? The prosecution did not reveal the second crime (they gave a set of possible crimes) needed to elevate the misdemeanour to a felony, until they spoke at the end. So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken. And the set of those laws were only revealed to the jury at the last moment. Literally denying the defence a legal opportunity to respond to the laws that the defendant was alleged to have broken. Breaking law A = misdemeanour Breaking law A + another law = Felony Prosecution never revealed the other law Trump was alleged to have broken until closing arguments. Trial is about breaking law A. But closing arguments are about breaking law A in combination with another law. The prosecution gave a set of possible other laws at closing arguments, in which they went last. The judge instructed the jury that they can individually select which other law they think Trump broke. How can this possibly be a fair trail process, when you can defend yourself for breaking law A, but get punished for breaking laws A + X. In which X is not revealed to you during the proceedings of the trail, but only to the jury at the last moment.