Jonathan Turley noted that today’s Supreme Court ruling in Erlinger has some implications for the Manhattan Bragg case against Donald Trump.
In the Manhattan case, Judge Merchan let the jury pick one of three potential crimes, and their choice didn’t have to be unanimous. None of the choices were crimes Trump committed, but that’s beside the point.
Professor Turley wrote on X:
This could have some interesting analogies to the Manhattan verdict. The court ruled that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make that insular determinations on the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. It is not directly on point, but one of the objections to the Manhattan trial was based on the instruction that the jury did not have to agree on exactly what happened, specifically which secondary crime was being concealed by the falsification of business records. That meant that there could be a 4-4-4 jury on the key issue of that secondary crime.
Once again, Erlinger is not directly on point. However, the government was arguing that a judge could use a preponderance standard to find that a defendant committed three felonies or serious offenses for the imposition of mandatory prison terms. The Court reaffirmed the need for a unanimous decision under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard on such elements. It amplifies the need for direct and unanimous findings of such key elements to a criminal case. Some of us objected that the Manhattan case followed a dangerously fluid approach to key elements.
In an article on June 3, Jonathan Turley said one of the challenges Donald Trump can use is the unanimity issue.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system. While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been. In some ways, Trump may have been fortunate by Merchan’s cavalier approach. Given that the jury convicted Trump across the board, they might have found all of three secondary crimes. The verdict form never asked for such specificity.
The decision in Manhattan will never stand up.
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
Kangaroos all over the world hang their heads in shame.
The Gimmedats are trying to deny The People the right to elect their candidate of choice.
It is election interference
President Trump has good lawyers, but I would consider filing an action in Fed Ct in Florida to Arrest the Judgment as a violation of his Constitutional Rights, and seek a stay on any sentencing.
The sole purpose of the charge and trial and conviction was not the crime; it was to interfere in the Trump campaign by enabling Biden or whoever replaces him to say “convicted felon” over and over a million times. That was the purpose, and Turley knows that as well as I do. If by some miracle Trump regains the White House, one of the first objectives is to launch both a Cngressinal and a DOJ investigation into the apparent criminal election interference and prosecute all involved, including Biden, Garland, and the entire cast of criminals.
Yes, yes, and he’ll yeah!! Right after he pardons all the political prisoners of January 6th.
It wasn’t supposed to stand up. It was a ridiculous charge and verdict. It was designed to wound Trump and help defeat him at the polls with a fake conviction. They’re trying to make voters not vote for Trump using lies and falsely contrived convictions.
that entire case and the charges are crap, as was the jury and judge. It’s a judicial disgrace.