4 ms·

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

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.
  - ModernMech 2y ago
    > Typically (almost always) the defense has the last word to the jury. Where did you hear this? This is not true as far as I know. Here is a NY State guide to jury trials that seems to support that prosecution always goes second: After all evidence has been presented, the defense may deliver a summation, or a closing statement to the jury. *The prosecutor must then deliver a summation*. The summations review the evidence and present arguments based upon the evidence in the case to try to persuade the jury to convict or acquit the defendant. https://moderncourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/criminal_court_guide.pdf https://moderncourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/criminal... So first the defense may (they can opt not to) deliver a summation. Then (meaning after the defense) the prosecution must (they don't have a choice) offer a summation. > 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. No, this is not literally the situation. He knew the entire time he was charged for "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" under NY State law. This was made very clear to him, but moreover his lawyers knew this the entire time as well. The particular law states: That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. So they did not have to prove commission of an additional crime, they had to prove intent to commit an additional crime. The facts the jury used to determine whether Trump had this intent were presented by the prosecution at trial, and the defense had every opportunity to mount a defense against them. It's not like some surprise evidence was revealed at closing which the defense had no opportunity to counter. In fact, they had every opportunity to mount a defense. Notably, when they had their chance, they rested their case after calling a single witness who actually, in dramatic fashion, was caught in a lie by the prosecution on cross the way the defense hoped to catch Cohen in a lie on cross. Now it's laughable when they claim "we didn't have a chance to mount a defense", and people who didn't watch the trial treat that credulously. What exactly would they have said in defense if they had another opportunity? "Cohen's a liar, the judge is biased, the jury is rigged, the venue is not friendly." Nothing we haven't heard already, that's the point; everything that could have been said, has been said, and now that the verdict is "guilty" they want to have said more, as if whatever they have to say isn't more of the same deflection the jury didn't buy. We will see what the appeals court says but it's not looking good based on the fact many people have tried to argue this point on appeal, and it's been rejected.

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.
- ModernMech 2y ago
  > Typically (almost always) the defense has the last word to the jury. Where did you hear this? This is not true as far as I know. Here is a NY State guide to jury trials that seems to support that prosecution always goes second: After all evidence has been presented, the defense may deliver a summation, or a closing statement to the jury. *The prosecutor must then deliver a summation*. The summations review the evidence and present arguments based upon the evidence in the case to try to persuade the jury to convict or acquit the defendant. https://moderncourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/criminal_court_guide.pdf https://moderncourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/criminal... So first the defense may (they can opt not to) deliver a summation. Then (meaning after the defense) the prosecution must (they don't have a choice) offer a summation. > 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. No, this is not literally the situation. He knew the entire time he was charged for "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" under NY State law. This was made very clear to him, but moreover his lawyers knew this the entire time as well. The particular law states: That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. So they did not have to prove commission of an additional crime, they had to prove intent to commit an additional crime. The facts the jury used to determine whether Trump had this intent were presented by the prosecution at trial, and the defense had every opportunity to mount a defense against them. It's not like some surprise evidence was revealed at closing which the defense had no opportunity to counter. In fact, they had every opportunity to mount a defense. Notably, when they had their chance, they rested their case after calling a single witness who actually, in dramatic fashion, was caught in a lie by the prosecution on cross the way the defense hoped to catch Cohen in a lie on cross. Now it's laughable when they claim "we didn't have a chance to mount a defense", and people who didn't watch the trial treat that credulously. What exactly would they have said in defense if they had another opportunity? "Cohen's a liar, the judge is biased, the jury is rigged, the venue is not friendly." Nothing we haven't heard already, that's the point; everything that could have been said, has been said, and now that the verdict is "guilty" they want to have said more, as if whatever they have to say isn't more of the same deflection the jury didn't buy. We will see what the appeals court says but it's not looking good based on the fact many people have tried to argue this point on appeal, and it's been rejected.