However, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s handling of these charges, particularly the linking of falsified records to federal election crimes, has been such a disaster that even leftist media has been forced to admit Bragg made a big mistake according to Fox News.
Legal scholar Jed Handelsman Shugerman argues that DA Alvin Bragg’s approach may undermine the legal solidity of the case against former President Donald Trump.
Donald Trump is accused of a cover-up involving falsified business records to disguise federal election violations, an accusation that is rooted in the payments made to Stormy Daniels prior to the 2016 election. This case revolves around whether these actions were an attempt to influence the election outcome by concealing information from the public.
Analyzing the Prosecution's Approach
Shugerman, a law professor, penned a critical opinion piece that was published in the New York Times. In it, he outlines several legal shortcomings in Bragg's prosecution strategy. His primary concern is the attempt to treat the alleged concealment of federal election crimes as a state-level offense under New York law, which he suggests lacks precedent and appropriate legal foundation.
He emphasizes that the prosecutorial strategy seems to stretch the bounds of state law to encompass federal election issues. Shugerman points out the legal hazards of making defrauding the general public a focal point in this case, citing that there is no clear precedent for this under the relevant criminal statute in New York.
The Role of Federal Law in State Prosecutions
This debate extends into the technical legal domains concerning jurisdiction and applicability of different laws. Trump’s defense has argued that the alleged underlying crime must be recognized as a crime under New York law, not just in other jurisdictions. This point underlines a significant contention between the prosecution and defense, potentially influencing the strategies of both sides throughout the trial.
The court faced these issues again when Trump returned for a session on Tuesday, as reported by Fox News Digital. This ongoing legal battle has not only stirred the legal community but also has broader implications on how similar cases might be approached in the future.
Shugerman's Predictions and Conclusions
Shugerman's criticism of Bragg's handling of the case doesn’t stop at legal technicalities; he also challenges the ethical stance of the prosecution. He describes the DA's allegations as "vague" and criticizes the overall ethical framework guiding the prosecution, labeling it an "embarrassment of prosecutorial ethics and apparent selective prosecution."
The law professor has also voiced concerns about the potential long-term outcomes of the case. He believes that if Trump is convicted, there is a strong possibility that the conviction could be overturned in the appellate courts due to the issues he identifies with the legal theories and approaches used by Bragg.
Shugerman's blunt critique culminates in a stern warning: if the prosecution's initial presentations are indicative of their overall strategy, Bragg’s team might struggle to secure a conviction. This assertion reflects both on the specific case at hand and on broader practices within legal prosecutorial conduct.
