POST PRESIDENTIAL INDICTMENT
Hello, street law advocates!
As many of you have seen in the news, former President Trump was recently indicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in violation of New York’s Penal Law 175.10. Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, a critic of the indictment expressed concern that this is an instance of prosecutorial overreach that may not meet the standard of due process. [i]
Mr. Trump allegedly falsified business records in an attempt to cover up his campaign’s suppression of negative information by having his lawyer pay $130,000 to an adult film actress. This payment was made through a shell corporation from the Lawyer’s personal bank account which Trump then reimbursed under the guise of legal fees. In addition, Trump allegedly falsified entries made in New York business records in attempt to conceal the hush money payment to the adult film actress. [ii]
In order to be convicted of falsifying business records in the first degree in violation of New York Penal Law 175.10, an individual needs to commit the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree with the intent to defraud and an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.[iii] The standard of proof necessary for a grand jury in New York is whether the prosecution has provided enough legally sufficient evidence to warrant a possible conviction when viewed in the light most favorable to the state. [iv] Legally sufficient evidence is evidence that solely needs to establish the possibility of every element of an offense charged. This standard of proof is considerably lower than what is needed to sustain a criminal conviction and is just a precursor to taking a case to trial. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is a beyond a reasonable doubt standard which means that the jury thinks the defendant is guilty, and there is no reasonable doubt that contradicts a guilty finding. This contradicts the standard of proof for a Grand Jury in New York, because it is a higher bar of evidentiary proof than a Grand Jury needs to issue an indictment. In the context of former President Trump’s alleged crimes, the prosecution needs to show evidence to the grand jury that establishes that he may have 1) falsified business records and 2) did so intending to commit another crime or hide evidence of another crime, whereas during trial they need to prove that Trump actually committed these acts beyond a reasonable doubt. Essentially, the prosecution does not need to show that he committed any crime, just show that it is plausible that he did.
Upon inspection of the indictment, there are no currently available facts available suggesting that former President Trump committed the underlying criminal behavior. The indictment merely states that the grand jury accused Trump of committing the alleged crime, and then provides a short statement outlining the elements necessary to prove a conviction under New York Penal Law 175.10. The statement of facts merely gives an illustrative story that seeks to prove the alleged criminal actions but provides conjecture that is not dispositive of criminal behavior. While the statement of facts is not alone sufficient to support a criminal conviction, these facts do at least establish the mere possibility that these allegations happened, which under New York law, is enough to support an indictment.
The statement of facts and indictments have spurred criticism of the criminal justice system and have led to mainstream discourse seeking to highlight the issues with criminal justice practices. While it is great that these topics are back in the mainstream consciousness, we as a society should be careful to not only address these systemic issues that disproportionately impact underserviced and minority communities when a celebrity may be affected by it. Over the next couple of weeks, we will be adding to this blog thread to highlight criminal justice and constitutional issues that affect the average person to shed light on the legal discourse that actually affects our communities.
[i] Politico, Bragg’s Case Against Trump Hits a Wall of Skepticism – Even from Trumps Critics, https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/05/alvin-bragg-case-against-trump-00090602
[ii] Politico, Read the Full Trump Indictment and Statement of Facts, https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/read-the-trump-indictment-document-00087925
[iii] N Y PENAL § 175.10
[iv] People v. Arcila ,59 N.Y.S.3d 783, 784 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017).
Every time a person interacts with law enforcement, they are in one of three phases. They are either 1) free to go, 2) detained, or 3) under arrest. Justice101 teaches vulnerable populations to terminate the interaction at the earliest opportunity. However, Thaddeus Johnson and Natasha Johnson published an article in the February edition of Time Magazine that suggests a different approach — if we want to decrease interactions with law enforcement, we need to decrease the number of traffic stops.
Time’s article centers around the recent beating and death of Tyre Nichols in Memphis at the hands of members of Memphis’ police force. On January 7, 2023, Nichols was pulled over by police, after which they viciously beat him. Nichols died three days later due to “extensive bleeding caused by a severe beating.”
According to the Johnsons’ article, Nichols’ death is yet another reminder to certain populations within the United States that all too often, interactions with law enforcement turn deadly for those stopped by police. This is made all the worse by pretextual policing, where officers stop a person who, while they are arguably committing a traffic violation, the police wish to investigate other, unrelated possible criminal activity.
The most common way an American encounters law enforcement is through a traffic stop. In fact, police pull over more than 50,000 drivers daily in the United States. While many of these stops are with the intent to keep the roads safe, the Johnson’s assert a large number are simply pretextual policing. Moreover, they assert that pretextual policing is more likely to impact Black drivers, particularly young, Black men. Importantly, “while Black male drivers are more likely to be searched, they are less likely to be found with contraband.”
While the article recognizes that many state and local governments have made changes following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, MN in 2020 — more work must be done. Essentially, the article explains different ways in which police forces can re-focus their priorities away from mundane traffic stops, and instead focus on higher impact police activities, such as more serious violations of speeding and running traffic lights, as well as spending time handling routine calls and interacting with citizens. Basically, a focus on “community building, innovative problem-solving, effective communication, and civility.”
What do you think? How do you feel about how police officers spend their typical day? Do you think it would be improved if communities took the steps suggested in the Johnson’s article? Let us know!
Justice101 Undercover: A blog shining a light on hidden injustices and promoting equality for all citizens
Welcome to Justice101's blog, dedicated to educating and advocating for vulnerable populations regarding their constitutional rights. Our blog features news stories, analysis, and practical advice on current events related to constitutional issues and law enforcement. We strive to empower individuals with the knowledge and resources needed to protect their rights and promote accountability for law enforcement's actions. Join us in our efforts to create a more just and equitable society for all.