Supreme Court Upends Trump Case – Unanimous Ruling Could Put an End to DA’s Crusade

[rangerrebew]

Supreme Court Upends Trump Case – Unanimous Ruling Could Put an End to DA’s Crusade
By Adam Casalino|April 5, 2023
 
 
What’s Happening:
When the left-leaning, politically-motivated New York DA announced his indictment against Trump, he sealed the charges. This gave the liberal media several days to speculate on this witch hunt, building up the narrative that Trump was guilty before the trial even began.

But, when the charges were officially announced, things weren’t as cheery as the left hoped. The DA’s entire case against Trump hangs on the claim that he “intended” to commit other crimes. It doesn’t seem the DA has ammunition to prove this charge, giving Trump a big advantage. And he’s looking to the Supreme Court to shut this scheme down.
 
From Just the News:

But a “Bridgegate” case involving on-again, off-again Trump pal Chris Christie may give the defense team some of its most fertile ground to attack the prosecutor’s allegations that the former president was engaged in a conspiracy to defraud. All 34 felonies filed against the former president alleged he falsified his company’s documents with an “intent to defraud” and hide hush money payments to porn actress Stormy Daniels.

Back in 2020, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in a case called Kelly vs. United States overturned the convictions of former Gov. Christie’s aides in New Jersey in a scandal involving the closure of bridge lanes. The justices ruled the defendants couldn’t be convicted in a conspiracy to defraud without proof they sought to steal someone’s money or property.

https://pjnewsletter.com/scotus-trump-case-da/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pjnewsletter

[libertybele]

 

[Kamaji]

I wouldn't be quite so sanguine about the effect of the bridgegate case on the Trump prosecution.

[catfish1957]

I wouldn't be quite so sanguine about the effect of the bridgegate case on the Trump prosecution.

Kind of like a play off your tag line.... 

Correlation doesn't necessarily infer precedent.

[Kamaji]

Kind of like a play off your tag line.... 

Correlation doesn't necessarily infer precedent.

Well, to begin with, the defendants in the Kelly case were prosecuted under two federal statutes, the federal wire fraud statute and the federal-program fraud statute.  The Supreme Court's opinion makes it clear that it was construing those two statutes, not a general, free-floating concept of fraud.  The Kelly opinion in question is here:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1059_e2p3.pdf

Since Bragg is proceeding under NY state law, the holding of the Kelly case is not particularly relevant here.

[catfish1957]

Well, to begin with, the defendants in the Kelly case were prosecuted under two federal statutes, the federal wire fraud statute and the federal-program fraud statute.  The Supreme Court's opinion makes it clear that it was construing those two statutes, not a general, free-floating concept of fraud.  The Kelly opinion in question is here:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1059_e2p3.pdf

Since Bragg is proceeding under NY state law, the holding of the Kelly case is not particularly relevant here.

Coffee clatch yesterday debated whether we thought this thing would inevitably end up in SCOTUS.  My points included if you believe Dershowitz, he believes that an aligned anti-Trump contingent of D.A, Judge, and jury will almost certainly convict him of anything thrown against him.

So, knowing that and the appellant process, I am guessing there's a 75% chance where this ultimately gets decided by SCOTUS. But will electoral timing even give Trump enough time to get that far?  .  What says you...  Resident Briefer Lawyer.?

[Kamaji]

Coffee clatch yesterday debated whether we thought this thing would inevitably end up in SCOTUS.  My points included if you believe Dershowitz, he believes that an aligned anti-Trump contingent of D.A, Judge, and jury will almost certainly convict him of anything thrown against him.

So, knowing that and the appellant process, I am guessing there's a 75% chance where this ultimately gets decided by SCOTUS. But will electoral timing even give Trump enough time to get that far?  .  What says you...  Resident Briefer Lawyer.?

My guess is, the only basis on which it could get into federal court is a claim that, under the circumstances, the process constituted a denial of due process in violation of 14th Amendment, but where the claims are at least colorable, and where the process goes through a NY trial court, the intermediate appellate level, and up to the NY Court of Appeals (the state's highest court), I do not believe that a claim of deprivation of due process will hold at the Supreme Court.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

My guess is, the only basis on which it could get into federal court is a claim that, under the circumstances, the process constituted a denial of due process in violation of 14th Amendment, but where the claims are at least colorable, and where the process goes through a NY trial court, the intermediate appellate level, and up to the NY Court of Appeals (the state's highest court), I do not believe that a claim of deprivation of due process will hold at the Supreme Court.

 


I do agree with Dershowitz that a conviction likely would not survive appeal at the state level, though.