Donald Trump Verdict Unlikely to Survive in Federal Court—Legal Analyst

Former President Donald Trump’s guilty verdict is unlikely to survive in a federal appellate court, according to Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett on Saturday.

On Thursday, Trump, who is the GOP presidential nominee, was found guilty on 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels shortly before the 2016 presidential election by Trump’s then-lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen in a case brought forward by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The prosecution argued that the hush money payment was part of a broader scheme to “promote Mr. Trump’s election by unlawful means.”

Daniels alleges she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which he denies. Trump has maintained his innocence, claiming the case was politically motivated against him. His legal team pledged to fight the verdict and appeal the case if necessary.

Appearing on Fox & Friends Weekend on Saturday, Jarrett, known for his pro-Trump commentary, did not have faith in a win for Trump in a New York appellate court and said, “Trump’s only real relief in this case can be found in the federal courts because those judges, who are a lot smarter, actually care about the right to a fair trial.”

He later added: “These due process rights are so important and they were so grievously violated, I can’t see this case surviving judicial scrutiny in the federal court.”

Jarrett also bashed the case saying it is “littered with reversible errors by Judge [Juan] Merchan [who presided over the trial] especially due process violations—refusing to tell the defendant what this secondary conspiracy crime is, that ignores Trump’s Sixth Amendment right.”

He added: “And then telling the jury, don’t worry about unanimity on which of the three possible uncharged crimes that are a predicate to your verdict. I mean, that is so shocking, such a bedrock constitutional right.”

The legal analyst was referring to Merchan’s jury instructions. According to New York law, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, but what brings it up to a felony is if the records were falsified in an attempt to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of a crime.

Merchan told the jury: “Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.”

The judge gave jurors three different crimes to choose from: violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), the falsification of other business records or violation of tax laws.

Jarrett added on Saturday: “But the legal theory itself was ludicrous. As you say, nobody really knows what they decided other than the verdict. An expired misdemeanor that comes to life thanks to an unidentified felony over which Alvin Bragg has no authority to enforce.”

Following the verdict, Bragg said at a news conference on Thursday: “I did my job,” adding, “There are many voices out there, but the only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken.”

Verdict Reactions

When reached for comment on Saturday afternoon by Newsweek, Trump’s spokesperson Steven Cheung referred to Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche’s Thursday night interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

Reacting to the verdict, Blanche told Collins: “I think that at the end of the day, it remains true that if the word of Michael Cohen was not accepted at all, then you could not have convicted President Trump. And the jury convicted. So, at the end of the day, they looked past what we thought were fatal flaws, in Mr. Cohen’s story, and his past, and they reached a guilty verdict.”

When asked what Blanche would argue in an appeal, he said, in part: “We just think that because of everything around the lead-up with this trial, it made it very difficult for the jury, to evaluate the evidence, kind of independent of what they knew coming in. And we knew that.”

Newsweek has also reached out to Blanche directly via email for comment.

Meanwhile, MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday, “Trump’s allies are hitting the talking points tonight that the DA’s case was a political hit job without any unifying or sound legal theory. That’s untrue. Not only would anyone else have been prosecuted years ago for the underlying election conspiracy, but the theory was obvious enough that before the case was indicted, I figured it out.”

When asked on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Friday what swayed the jury to convict Trump of all 34 counts with expediency, Rubin said, “I think what happened, is evidence happened. And the evidence in this case was overwhelming.”