The entire radical Left has been cheering the Trump trial result. But that might be premature.
And now two lawyers have raised hell over the Trump verdict on CNN because of this shocking reason.
The Trump haters have been celebrating the jury ruling that Trump is “guilty” of all 34 counts of the criminal charges brought against him by the Manhattan DA’s office headed by George Soros-backed Alvin Bragg.
Though, the fallout hasn’t been what the radical Leftists thought it would be. Early reports indicate that Trump’s odds of winning the election in November have not been harmed at all. Not only that, but it seems as though Trump might have gained some small support as well. That’s the exact opposite of what the enemies of Trump wanted.
Legal experts are also questioning the outcome of the trial, which doesn’t bode well for the state prosecution when Donald Trump inevitably appeals. All of it just stinks of a rig job, which is exactly what Donald Trump has been saying about the case.
A ton of CNN guests have been outspoken on the radical Leftist network, and even the network hosts were skeptical that the case would end the way it did.
Legal Experts Criticize Jury Instructions in Trump Trial, Citing Constitutional Concerns
On Friday, defense attorney Randy Zelin and former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore raised serious concerns about the jury instructions given by Judge Juan Merchan during former President Donald Trump’s trial. The two attorneys argued that Merchan’s instructions violated the U.S. Constitution, potentially setting the stage for an appeal.
Judge Merchan directed the jury that they did not need to unanimously agree on the specific “other crime” Trump allegedly committed. Instead, the jury was presented with three separate crimes to choose from to convict the former president. Zelin and Parlatore discussed these instructions on CNN Special Report, suggesting that their flaws might lead to an appellate court overturning the conviction.
“I hate to do this, but I would be remiss if I didn’t,” Zelin remarked. “Whether you are driving in a Ford or a Ferrari, if someone gives you bad directions, you’re going to end up lost. And those jury instructions were just a complete, just take the Constitution, throw it out a window, burn it, shoot it, and hang it.”
Parlatore highlighted a key issue with the instructions related to the requirement that falsification of business records must be in furtherance of another crime. He pointed out that Merchan’s instructions were inadequate regarding this other crime.
“Under New York State law, they’re not required to say which it is. But when they do, the judge has to instruct them on that specific crime,” Parlatore explained. “The problem here is they don’t have to prove that they actually committed that other crime. They don’t have to prove that they actually had FEC violations, but they have to show that what they intended to do was in fact a crime. And that I think is really the shortfall in the jury instructions.”
The jury convicted Trump on Thursday on all 34 counts of falsifying business records in the case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.
Adding to the discussion, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig and criminal defense attorney Michael O’Mara indicated that Trump’s appeal might hinge on the unprecedented nature of the case and Merchan’s decision not to sequester the jury.
“I think there’s a great likelihood of a successful appeal, and the reason why is there are a number of issues,” O’Mara said. “I have always complained about the way this jury was or was not handled during the trial. I think with the massive focus on this case that they should have been sequestered. They certainly should have been sequestered during the deliberations. I think they should have been sequestered for the week before.”
The conviction has sparked calls from prominent figures for higher judicial intervention. On Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson urged the Supreme Court to “step in” due to the conviction of the former president.
The Supreme Court is far more likely to let the case go through the appellate court system than pick it up to review the case themselves first. That being said, it could be literal years before the Supreme Court even touches the case at all. The biggest question mark is what Judge Merchan does during sentencing.
Watch the clip from the CNN segment using the video player below:
Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.
