A Yale law professor suggests there is another strategy former President Donald Trump’s legal team could follow to limit the impact of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case on the presidential election of 2024, after a New York jury found the former president guilty of 34 counts of forgery. commercial files.
In a newly created podcast, Straight Down the Middle, Yale law professor Jed Rubenfeld examined the legal options available to Trump’s defense team following the jury’s verdict, as well as how to proceed. call which should take place soon. .
The most obvious route that Trump’s legal team should take in trying to challenge the conviction is through an appeal to the New York Court of Appeals in hopes of reaching the Supreme Court — a process that , according to Rubenfeld, will take years. could result in “irreparable harm”.
“Of course it would take years, and that’s a problem. Why is this a problem? This is a problem because the election will have taken place and if this conviction is illegal and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on this election,” Rubenfeld, a constitutional law professor, said on his podcast.
Pointing to surveys that show a “substantial number” of American voters say they will still vote for Trump in the next presidential election if he is a convicted felon, Rubenfeld said: “If this is true, it This is an illegal conviction in this case. could interfere with the upcoming election of the next president of the United States, and indeed decide its outcome. »
“Even if the conviction were overturned on appeal years later, this effect could not be reversed. In legal terms, that’s called irreparable harm,” Rubenfeld said.
If the conviction were to be overturned on appeal, Rubenfeld suggested that Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan may have “unlawfully interfered with the election and decided the outcome of the next election through unconstitutional means.”
“And no number of years of appeal could have any effect on that,” he added.
Despite media reports, Rubenfeld insisted it was “not true” that Trump is already a “convicted felon,” arguing that one is “not a convicted felon because of the verdict of ‘a jury “.
“You are not convicted until the judge renders a judgment of guilt. Today in New York, it is very likely that Judge Merchan will enter a guilty judgment against Trump on the same day he passes sentence. It would be July 11.
Rubenfeld insisted there is “another path” Trump’s lawyers could take to fight the conviction: filing suit in federal court and “seeking an emergency temporary restraining order.”
Describing what that effort would look like, Rubenfeld said: “In this federal action, Trump would sue District Attorney Bragg and other state actors and ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order preventing the Judge Merchan to enter this guilty judgment until the federal courts have an opportunity to consider and set aside the serious constitutional arguments that exist here.
Rubenfeld, expressing concern that criminally targeting former presidents for “unclear” crimes is a “bad look for this country,” also highlighted what he sees as problems in the case Trump.
“To criminally attack a former president of the United States and someone who is currently running for president is a very bad image for this country,” he said.
“It’s particularly bad when the people bringing the case and the judge deciding are members of the opposing political party. And it’s even worse when the crime is so clear that the state hides the ball on the real charges throughout the trial and even during the trial.”
“Even today, we don’t know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of,” Rubenfeld added.
Rubenfeld said those who criminally target members of opposing political parties, in this case Trump, the “leading candidate in the polls,” then “better have the goods.”
“You better not pursue a new legal theory where you have to hide the ball.” [and] We don’t even know what the charges are,” he said.
“This could set a very dangerous precedent for this country. A very bad and dangerous precedent.
“This is why it is so important that a federal court examine the constitutionality of this lawsuit and decide whether it is constitutional or not,” he added.
“The only way to get this done before the election is for Team Trump to file suit in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily stay the entry of the judgment of guilt until the federal courts, and perhaps to the Supreme Court. himself, can, in case of emergency, judge the probability of success of these constitutional arguments.
If that doesn’t happen, Rubenfeld said, then “that danger of ‘irreparable harm’ that I mentioned earlier, well, here we are.” »
“But if that happens, the nation could get a ruling from the federal courts, or even the U.S. Supreme Court, before the election takes place,” he said.
“Maybe that’s what the nation needs, and maybe that’s what the law requires here.”
Last week, at his trial in Manhattan, Trump was found guilty by the jury of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to the secret payment of money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels at the approach to the 2016 presidential election.
Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11 and could be sent to prison, just days before the Republican National Convention scheduled to take place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.