A Yale Law professor has claimed that Trump is not a convicted felon despite his recent guilty verdict in New York.
Jed Rubenfeld, 65, made the statement this week. on his podcast, ‘Right down the middle.’
Citing state law, he said the former president is not a convicted felon until a judge rules guilty at his sentencing.
The presumptive 2024 Republican nominee will be sentenced on July 11, which could send him to prison just in time for the Republican National Convention.
Meanwhile, Rubenfeld outlined several “paths” Trump’s lawyers could take to prevent that from happening, such as filing a lawsuit in federal court to stop the conviction.
Scroll down to watch the video:
Jed Rubenfeld, 65, made the argument this week on his podcast, ‘Straight Down the Middle.’ Rubenfeld is a law professor at Yale Law School.
Citing state law, he said the former president is not a convicted felon despite the jury’s verdict — that is, until a judge rules guilty at his sentencing. The presidential criminal is seen in Manhattan Criminal Court last month before the jury’s verdict.
“If you’ve been reading about this case – that Trump is already a convicted felon, the jury has convicted him, he’s a convicted felon – well, guess what: that’s not true,” the legal expert began.
You are not a felon convicted by a jury verdict. You will not be convicted unless the judge rules guilty against you.
He reiterated: ‘The judge still has the power, as I told him before, to throw out that verdict and issue an acquittal.
“You are not convicted until the judge pronounces a guilty verdict.”
“Now, in New York, it is very likely that Judge Merchan will hand down that guilty sentence against Trump on the same day that he hands down the sentence,” Rubenfeld explained.
“That would be July 11.”
Describing the effort, he said that “in this federal action, Trump would sue District Attorney (Alivin) Bragg and other state actors (involved in the case).”
Then, ‘I would ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order, preventing Judge Merchán from issuing that guilty ruling until the federal courts have had the opportunity to review and discard the serious constitutional arguments that exist.’ he said.
Rubenfeld went on to claim that it is a “bad image for this country” to criminally target former presidents for “unclear” crimes, before pointing out what he described as problems with the apparently solved hush money case.
Trump, far left, watches as the jury foreman delivers guilty verdicts as Judge Juan Merchán listens on May 30. The presumptive 2024 Republican nominee will be sentenced on July 11, which could send him to prison just in time for the Republican National Convention in Wisconsin.
The decision will be left to Judge Merchan (pictured) unless Trump’s legal team takes it out of his hands.
He explained: “Criminally pursuing a former president of the United States and someone who is now running for president is a very bad look.”
“It looks especially bad when the people bringing the case and the judge deciding it are members of the opposing political party,” he continued.
‘And it’s even worse when the crime is so confusing that the state hides what the real charges are throughout the trial and, indeed, during the trial.
“Even now we don’t know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of,” Rubenfeld further stated.
Pointing to the origin of the case, he insisted that those who criminally attack members of opposing political parties, especially a “leading candidate in the polls” like Trump, “better have the goods.”
“You better not be following some novel legal theory where you have to hide the ball (and) it’s not even clear what the charges are.”
That, he said, “could (set) a very dangerous precedent for this country,” and is why “it is so important that a federal court review the constitutionality of this prosecution.”
Only then can they truly discern whether the case was “constitutional or not,” he said.
“The only way to achieve this before the election is for Trump’s team to file a lawsuit in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily stay the entry of the guilty verdict,” said Rubenfeld, a constitutional law expert. saying
“The only way to do this before the election takes place is for Trump’s team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily postpone the entry of the guilty verdict,” he continued.
So, “the federal courts, and perhaps the Supreme Court itself, can, on an emergency basis, decide on the likelihood of success of these constitutional arguments.”
If that doesn’t happen, Trump, 77, could challenge the conviction with an appeal through the New York Court of Appeals system as a means to move the Supreme Court, but it would “take years” to work in his favor. said the constitutional law professor. .
Nor would it address the “irreparable damage” caused to the politician’s reputation and prospects in what amounts to a contentious election, in which he is just ahead of incumbent Joe Biden in most polls.
“Of course, that would take years, and that’s a problem here,” he said of the likely drawbacks of such a move.
“It is a problem because the elections will have taken place, if this conviction is illegal and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on those elections,” he said.
If the conviction was to be overturned years later, “that effect could not be undone.”
“In legal terms, that’s called irreparable harm,” he said.
If that does not happen, Trump could challenge the conviction with an appeal, but that would not affect not only his reputation but also his electoral chances. If the restraining order is approved, “the nation could get a ruling from the federal courts … before the election is held,” Rubenfeld said.
That said, if the restraining order is approved, “the nation could obtain a ruling from the federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, before the election is held,” Rubenfeld denied.
“Maybe that’s what the nation needs, and maybe that’s what the law requires here,” he added, while focusing on how Trump’s legal team could control the damage already done.
Last week, at a trial in Manhattan, Trump was found guilty by a jury of all 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush payment administered to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the run-up to the US election. 2016.
He will now be sentenced on July 11, after which he could be sent to prison.
If so, it would happen a few days before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which would put a stop to this year’s cycle.
The decision, in the end, will be in Merchan’s hands, unless Trump’s team is able to take it out of his hands.
