A defense strategy for the case of NY v. Trump
The sham trial in NYC being orchestrated by DA Alvin Bragg against Donald Trump is designed to keep Trump off the campaign trail and further salacious material to create more doubt about him in the minds of undecided voters. The judge, Juan Merchan, is an acting Supreme Court judge, appointed to this position by the Administrative Chief Judge Ann Pfau and selected for this case since he has presided over other Trump cases. Though I am not a lawyer, the obvious failings of this case are numerous. I propose to outline a strategy for a not-guilty verdict instead of a hung jury.
After one week of testimony there is no clear indication of the underlying crime that Bragg used to elevate misdemeanor crimes to a felony. A bill of particulars in the indictment is required in American criminal proceedings and was one of the rationales for the Revolution. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the defense to call legal scholars to demonstrate this limitation. Several would be able to clearly state that that tabloid “catch and kill” efforts are not illegal and are ordinary political and celebrity procedures. Then David Pecker’s testimony could be nullified in the jury’s minds.
Many legal scholars have stated that the defense should only show that there is no proof of criminal activity which would allow any juror to hang the decision. This will not help Trump in the election as a not guilty result will. Further an effort to show that this trial is illegitimate will give credence to Trump’s claim that he is being persecuted.
If there is evidence of Alvin Bragg’s interaction with the White House, this should be brought out. If this requires calling him as a witness, it should be pursued. Undoubtedly Judge Merchan will balk, giving another cause for appeal should that be necessary. This is a way of showing this prosecution is political. Matthew Colangelo left his senior position in the Justice Department to take a lesser position as a prosecutor in this case which further suggests political motivation. This should be brought out. I would call Mark Pomerantz, who quit Bragg’s office and wrote People v. Trump. An Inside Account. He repeatedly took the “Fifth” when called by the House Judiciary Committee. That would look terrible to the jury.
Further, the prosecution has yet to demonstrate how the statute of limitations should be ignored for the primary crimes being charged. Even the judge indicated that there were several possible underlying crimes which were not identified against the constitutional requirement. This could allow a double jeopardy claim as a least four ideas were claimed in pre-trial motions. An effort to have a legal scholar testify to these issues would help further. The judge might object, though. The jury might be instructed to ignore these issues but once heard, how can they forget?
Judge Merchan is in violation of judicial regulations which require six degrees of separation from any family members that could have any financial benefit from these proceedings. His daughter works for a political consulting firm that has represented many Democrats and is raising funds off this trial. Further Merchan is required to instruct the jury when a claim of illegality is falsely made by the prosecution. But the worst error he has made is to allow extraneous evidence.
The Court of Appeals of NY State just ordered a new trial for Harvey Weinstein in his sexual misconduct trial. This was necessary since the judge in that case allowed unrelated evidence into the case against Weinstein. The same is already apparent in the Trump case. Further, what is the crime in extramarital affairs? The defense should call federal officials who refused to prosecute him for election issues. The defense must demonstrate that the NYC DA has no authority over federal crimes. A “not guilty” verdict will boost Trump’s campaign beyond any speech, ad, or debate.
Image: Bundesarchiv