Former President Donald Trump is appealing his conviction in the New York hush money trial for three main points. The first issue is that the prosecution never found an underlying crime to revive the misdemeanor bookkeeping charges that had lapsed. The second issue is unbounded character testimony that is detrimental to Trump and evidence that the trial judge permitted to be introduced, such as the notorious "Access Hollywood" tape.
A defendant's right to a fair trial and due process is allegedly violated when the exact accusation they are facing is not specified in a manner that allows them to defend themselves appropriately. In this case, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan directed jurors that they only needed to conclude that Trump committed bookkeeping breaches to hide a violation of campaign finance law, a violation of tax law, or a fabrication of company records. They were able to get a verdict of guilty without having to reach a consensus on the underlying offense.
The issue of the absence of a second crime is exactly the kind of legal question that would be prime for appellate review. Thomas Hogan, a professor at South Texas College of Law, believes that an appeals court would be suspicious of instructions of this nature. The fact that the prosecution has not been forced to identify specifically the underlying crime that would make this business records case a felony would certainly get a skeptical look from an appellate court.
Mr. Trump's conviction is a momentous occasion because it marks the first time that a former president has been charged with criminal offenses and has been brought to trial. The jury decided that he was responsible on all 34 charges. The admission of the "Access Hollywood" video into evidence, in which Mr. Trump is heard describing grabbing women's body parts without authorization, was deemed to be extraneous to the allegations and detrimental to the defendant.
A defendant's right to a fair trial and due process is allegedly violated when the exact accusation they are facing is not specified in a manner that allows them to defend themselves appropriately. In this case, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan directed jurors that they only needed to conclude that Trump committed bookkeeping breaches to hide a violation of campaign finance law, a violation of tax law, or a fabrication of company records. They were able to get a verdict of guilty without having to reach a consensus on the underlying offense.
The issue of the absence of a second crime is exactly the kind of legal question that would be prime for appellate review. Thomas Hogan, a professor at South Texas College of Law, believes that an appeals court would be suspicious of instructions of this nature. The fact that the prosecution has not been forced to identify specifically the underlying crime that would make this business records case a felony would certainly get a skeptical look from an appellate court.
Mr. Trump's conviction is a momentous occasion because it marks the first time that a former president has been charged with criminal offenses and has been brought to trial. The jury decided that he was responsible on all 34 charges. The admission of the "Access Hollywood" video into evidence, in which Mr. Trump is heard describing grabbing women's body parts without authorization, was deemed to be extraneous to the allegations and detrimental to the defendant.
