Following his conviction on May 30 in New York, former President Donald Trump has stated his intention to appeal the ruling, with his legal team confident in the merits of his case.
However, the decision of whether to hear President Trump’s appeal lies with the appellate courts, who may not find the grounds substantial enough to overturn the conviction.
The former president has until July 11, the date of his sentencing, to file a written notice of appeal, after which the appeal process is expected to proceed through the New York court system, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
While it’s unlikely that the Supreme Court will directly take on the appeal, the Appellate Division of the First Judicial Department is likely to be the first to consider it. From there, the case could be appealed to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.
Legal experts estimate that the appeals process could take years to reach a resolution, possibly even leading to a federal court depending on the arguments presented by President Trump.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani suggested that President Trump may attempt to bring the case to the Supreme Court by raising federal constitutional issues.
Should a higher court accept President Trump’s appeal, the likelihood of success remains uncertain, as most convictions are not overturned. However, his legal team remains committed to pursuing the appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Attorneys have criticized the trial on constitutional grounds, particularly regarding due process, and have identified multiple alleged errors that could support an appeal.
The Indictment
Many have questioned Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s decision to prosecute the case, particularly for the lack of specificity regarding the underlying crime President Trump was accused of committing while falsifying documents.
Felony falsification of business records typically requires the fraud to be done to commit or conceal another crime.
Prosecutors alleged that President Trump falsified business documents to influence the 2016 election, with the underlying crime being a violation of New York election law. This allegation raised concerns about the vagueness of the charges and the timing of the case.
Questions have also been raised about the justification for bringing federal campaign law violations into the state case against President Trump, especially after both the federal government and the previous district attorney declined to pursue charges.
Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig compared the case to “Frankenstein,” suggesting that it was pieced together with various parts that may not fit cohesively.
Jury Instructions
The ambiguity surrounding the prosecution extended to how the jury was instructed to reach a verdict. Jurors were informed that they didn’t need to agree unanimously on the specific unlawful conduct committed by President Trump in relation to the 2016 election, only that he caused one of three forms of misconduct.
Legal experts have raised concerns about the jury instructions, with some questioning whether they complied with New York law and President Trump’s right to due process.
Despite these criticisms, the legal process is expected to continue, with President Trump’s legal team prepared to pursue the appeal through the court system.
He also contended that New York law did not mandate jurors to reach a consensus on the specific unlawful actions committed by President Trump while violating New York state election laws.
Impartial Justice
Justice Merchan faced criticism for making a small donation to President Joe Biden’s campaign and for his daughter working at a Democratic political consulting firm.
Although he declined to recuse himself, Mr. Malcolm suggested that President Trump could raise this issue on appeal.
Mr. Rahmani argued that Justice Merchan’s daughter’s activities were not significant enough to warrant recusal, citing similar instances involving Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
Criticism of Justice Merchan’s rulings during the trial was also raised by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who described them as having “multiple layers of reversible error.”
Mr. Turley specifically questioned Justice Merchan allowing prosecutors to introduce Michael Cohen’s plea agreement and David Pecker’s non-prosecution agreement related to federal election violations.
He further expressed concerns about the appellate division’s composition and suggested that President Trump should appeal directly to the New York Court of Appeals.
Testimony and Evidence
Testimony from key witnesses such as Stephanie Clifford and Michael Cohen were highlighted as grounds for appeal by the defense.
Details provided by Ms. Clifford about her alleged encounter with President Trump and Mr. Cohen’s admission to pleading guilty to federal election crimes were scrutinized during the trial.
The defense’s failure to object to certain testimony and the prosecution’s use of Mr. Cohen’s testimony as a basis for alleging federal election violations were points of contention.
Former Federal Election Commission Chair Brad Smith was prevented from testifying on whether President Trump violated campaign finance laws, with critics arguing that this decision was unfair.
Overall, concerns were raised about the trial proceedings, including Justice Merchan’s rulings and the handling of expert witnesses.
This report was contributed to by Tom Ozimek and Catherine Yang. Please rewrite this sentence. Could you please rewrite this?
Source link
