Legal analyst Jonathan Turley argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions expose significant flaws in Donald Trump’s criminal hush money trial.
According to Newsweek, Turley suggests that New York's legal system is failing to protect defendants' rights in contrast to recent Supreme Court rulings.
In an opinion piece published in The Hill, Jonathan Turley, a legal analyst and attorney, critiques the handling of Donald Trump's criminal trial. Turley’s article, "At the Supreme Court, Two Cases Lay Bare New York's Legal Wasteland," was published almost a month after a Manhattan jury convicted Trump. The jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
Trump denies the allegations and claims the case is politically motivated. Despite the conviction, which marks the first time a former president has been convicted of felony crimes, Trump's legal team plans to appeal if necessary. Trump’s sentencing is scheduled for July 11.
Turley argues that New York has become a "legal wilderness" where prosecutors target political rivals and thrill their supporters. He specifically criticizes the jury instructions in Trump’s trial, highlighting the allowance for nonunanimous decisions on secondary crimes as a critical flaw.
Turley compares Trump's case to two recent Supreme Court rulings: Gonzalez v. Trevino and Erlinger v. United States. In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sylvia Gonzalez, allowing her to pursue a retaliation claim after criminal charges against her were thrown out before trial. In Erlinger v. United States, the Court determined that a jury must unanimously decide on past offenses for sentencing enhancements.
Turley believes these cases demonstrate the high level of protection typically afforded to criminal defendants, suggesting that Trump's trial did not meet this standard.
"The court ruled that a jury had to decide this issue unanimously under a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. This is in contrast to how the Trump case was handled, in which jurors could disagree on key aspects of the crime yet still convict the defendant," Turley wrote.
Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst, commented on the differences between the Supreme Court cases and Trump's case, describing them as "apples and oranges." She explained that the Supreme Court held that a jury must find unanimously each and every element of an offense, which was consistent with the principles applied in Trump’s trial.
McQuade further stated that the jury in Trump's case found unanimously both the primary crime—that Trump falsified business records—and the secondary crime—that he did so with intent to conceal the commission of another crime.
Cheryl Bader, a law professor at Fordham University, countered Turley's claims regarding the jury instructions, suggesting that the specific way the means were unlawful under New York Statute 17-152 does not require unanimous findings.
Jonathan Turley's critique of Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial brings attention to perceived deficiencies in New York’s legal system. By contrasting Trump's trial with recent Supreme Court rulings, Turley highlights issues related to jury instructions and defendants' rights. Legal experts like Barbara McQuade and Cheryl Bader have provided counterarguments, defending the trial's procedures.
As Trump's legal team prepares for a potential appeal, the debate over the trial's fairness and its implications for the judicial system continues. The outcome of Trump's sentencing on July 11 will be closely watched, potentially setting precedents for future legal battles involving high-profile figures.
