This is a short explanation of one of the many reversible errors in the New York State case against Donald J. Trump. There are other errors, but this is the easiest way for Judge Marchon to save face to set aside the verdict and coupling it with the decision on executive immunity where witnesses testified and offered evidence that is clearly not allowed is the right thing to do.
More importantly, it is time to dial down the rhetoric and stop using political prosecution of opponents. This is a dangerous path. Judge Cannon has ruled that the Trump Documents Case violated the Constitution as well (appointments and appropriations clause).
Vilifying remarks stirring up hate like “bull’s eye” and “will pay the price” have no place in political discourse.
Word Count: 500 words
Reading Time: Approximately 2 to 2.5 minutes
All Jurors Must Agree to All Elements of Crime
A look at the instructions and verdict in People v. Donald J. Trump in New York Case – Reversible Error
Introduction
One of the most significant Constitutional errors in the New York conspiracy “hush money” trial against Trump centers on Judge Marchon’s jury instructions and the absence of unanimous verdicts. Despite extensive discussions with critics of Trump, who remain adamant in their views, it is crucial to recognize that while paying hush money is not a crime, extortion is.
Supreme Court Rulings: Ramos and Erlinger, and Their Application to People v. Trump
Ramos v. Louisiana (2020)
In Ramos v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court decided that all criminal convictions by a jury must be unanimous. This means every juror must agree that the defendant is guilty of the crime. The case involved a man named Evangelisto Ramos who was convicted by a 10-2 jury vote in Louisiana. The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, stating that unanimous verdicts are essential for a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment.
Erlinger v. United States (2024)
In Erlinger v. United States, the Supreme Court reinforced the need for unanimous jury decisions on all parts of a crime, especially in cases involving multiple offenses. The Court ruled that for sentencing enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act, juries must unanimously decide that each past offense was committed on separate occasions.
Application to People v. Trump in New York
The principles from Ramos and Erlinger are relevant to the People v. Trump case in New York. In this case, former President Donald Trump faces charges that could involve complex conspiracy allegations. The rulings mean that for any conviction, the jury must unanimously agree on each element of the crime. This ensures that every part of the prosecution’s case is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to all jurors.
Key Points
Unanimous Verdicts: Both Ramos and Erlinger emphasize the need for unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases. This protects defendants by ensuring that the decision to convict is fully agreed upon by all jurors.
All Elements of the Crime: Erlinger specifically highlighted that juries must agree on each separate element of the crime. This could be crucial in conspiracy cases, where the prosecution must prove several different actions or agreements.
Fair Trials: These rulings aim to provide fairer trials by preventing convictions based on divided jury opinions, reducing the risk of wrongful convictions.
Impact on People v. Trump
In the context of People v. Trump, these Supreme Court decisions mean that for a conviction on any charge, including conspiracy, the jury must reach a unanimous decision on every aspect of the alleged crime. If even one juror disagrees, a conviction cannot be secured. This high standard is intended to ensure thorough and fair consideration of the evidence before reaching a verdict.