I do not believe that it is true that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of criminal matters. What is true is that it is basically an appellate court and it does not have original jurisdiction to try cases, unless they involve suits between the states or case brought against ambassadors and other public ministers. (Const. Art. III, S…
I do not believe that it is true that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of criminal matters. What is true is that it is basically an appellate court and it does not have original jurisdiction to try cases, unless they involve suits between the states or case brought against ambassadors and other public ministers. (Const. Art. III, Sec.2)
For an informative summary of criminal cases decided by the Court in the last term see https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/significant-criminal-cases-from-the-5422487/. These ranged from search and seizure issues, to the 6th amendment (unanimous jury issue), to statutory interpretation of criminal computer fraud laws, to the application of the plain error doctrine. The cases heard include Federal prosecutions and state ones if there is a Constitutional issue present.
I apologize and stand corrected. However, I do think this deserves a bit of clarification. The Supreme Court is as you stated an "appellate court" and as such has no original jurisdiction in criminal cases. As an appellate court, however, it can hear cases where there may have been a "procedural" error, additional exculpatory evidence subsequently discovered after the original hearing, or a misinterpretation of the criminal statute. Examples of procedural errors could be improper instructions to the jury, racial bias in seating the jury, incorrect judicial rulings during the original proceedings, and many more. Examples of misinterpretation of the law would cover the situation already suggested in the case of the reversal of findings in the "Bridgegate" cases, where it was determined there was wrongdoing but that it was not the "public corruption" which were the charges for which the defendants were tried - effectively the ruling was the case was "wrongly charged." Had the prosecutors charged the case differently another conviction on different charges might have stood.
In cases related to political figures, the charges are often, but not always, of public corruption nature. They generally relate to defrauding the government, misuse of public funds, accepting a bribe in return for political favors, or some similar charge. They are rarely charges of a RICO or conspiracy nature, or as serious as seditious conspiracy. However, it would certainly not be the first time a political figure was charged with some form of election fraud charges or election interference crimes. The mere fact that someone is a political figure would quite unlikely be grounds that would alone cause any appellate court, let alone the Supreme Court, to accept a case on appeal.
However, yes under the circumstances discussed above relating to acceptable grounds for appeal, it is possible for the Supreme Court to accept an appeal generated from a criminal case. However, it must be remembered this is not a "retrial" of the original case but rather the appellate court reviewing the circumstances only on the grounds of the appeal. You will not get an appeal accepted simply by saying, "I didn't do it and I should have not been found guilty." You have to do a lot better than that. Perhaps in Trump's case, his best defense would be mental incapacity.
Thank you for the clarification and my comments aren't met to detract from your excellent central point that we don't have a "political" criminal code. Unfortunately I'm not sure that we don't have politically biased judges and that in any trial as complex as one charging Trump, there won't be multiple opportunities for the bias to emerge. Key issues could include the necessary intent (mens rea) under various statutes, defenses along the lines of "my lawyers said I was within my rights" , attorney-client and other privileges, 1st amendment questions (did he really intend to set a fire in the Congressional theater) and the more common arguments over including and excluding witnesses and evidence. I'm sure all of this is one reason for AG Garland's cautious, methodical approach combined with the need for jury unanimity. Is it better to have charged and lost, or not to charge at all? I think the former but it's not an easy question.
I likewise agree with your comments as well. Although I am neither a lawyer nor do I pretend to be, I do lead a firm with my partner who has multiple law degrees. Our firm does provide legal services, primarily to in-house corporate legal departments, on contracts, intellectual property rights, and litigation support. Our firm’s area of expertise does not extend to criminal prosecutions or defense of them, although we do often provide guidance to corporate executives of our clients on matters related to corporate governance practices and “ethics” matters.
Having said this I do believe despite Trump’s apparent belief in his own cleverness, he is basically a buffoon. He also is surrounded, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is his history of not paying his legal bills, a cartoonish brigade of lawyers of at best marginal competence that is generally unrelated to the areas of law on which they are advising him.
The senior prosecutorial teams within the DOJ are contrastingly extremely competent. I am quite convinced if DOJ decides to bring a case it will see the best of those legal assassins assigned to that team. Were I given the choice of being a DOJ prosecutor on a case against Trump or the opportunity to be his defense counsel that decision would not be a coin flip.
Bill, I followed your exchange with Bruce as best I could. My simple question with reference to charges against Trump should they be brought by the DOJ has to do with whether he would tried by the supreme court given the low odds that a Constitutional issue or issues would be present?
Laurence Tribe, is an American legal scholar and renowned Harvard Law Professor who has argued cases 36 times before the U.S. Supreme Court and 26 times before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. His record in those trials is pretty impressive and he is considered among the leading legal scholars of Constitutional Law. He has cited numerous times both in media interviews and in print his views on specific criminal statutes in the U.S. Criminal Code he believes Trump has violated. The list is reasonably lengthy and the specific crimes are quite serious with severe punishments. None of those would be cases if brought that would first be heard in the Supreme Court.
Bruce, I have been familiar with Tribe for I don't know how many years. Two close friends mine went to Harvard Law School way back when and, of course, I have followed Tribe in recent years.
He would not be tried by the Supreme Court but issues arising from a lower court trial or issues stemming from an investigation or indictment by DOJ could make their way to the Supremes.
The SCOTUS doesn't "re-try" anything. They do have some very narrow fields of original jurisdiction but I doubt it amounts to anywhere near 1 % of their caseload since its establishment. It's an appellate Court.
Absolutely correct. Also, the Supreme Court generally hears only approximately 80 cases in a given term. That is a very small fraction (less than 1%) of the estimated over 10,000 petitions of certiorari they receive each year. Most of the time whatever the lower appellate court has ruled stands. It is quite likely that the would-be emperor Trump would insist on running any convictions through an appeals process. However, he would quite likely have to begin that process in a federal appeals court, not at the Supreme Court. It may or may not ever reach the Supreme Court.
I do not believe that it is true that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of criminal matters. What is true is that it is basically an appellate court and it does not have original jurisdiction to try cases, unless they involve suits between the states or case brought against ambassadors and other public ministers. (Const. Art. III, Sec.2)
For an informative summary of criminal cases decided by the Court in the last term see https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/significant-criminal-cases-from-the-5422487/. These ranged from search and seizure issues, to the 6th amendment (unanimous jury issue), to statutory interpretation of criminal computer fraud laws, to the application of the plain error doctrine. The cases heard include Federal prosecutions and state ones if there is a Constitutional issue present.
Bill,
I apologize and stand corrected. However, I do think this deserves a bit of clarification. The Supreme Court is as you stated an "appellate court" and as such has no original jurisdiction in criminal cases. As an appellate court, however, it can hear cases where there may have been a "procedural" error, additional exculpatory evidence subsequently discovered after the original hearing, or a misinterpretation of the criminal statute. Examples of procedural errors could be improper instructions to the jury, racial bias in seating the jury, incorrect judicial rulings during the original proceedings, and many more. Examples of misinterpretation of the law would cover the situation already suggested in the case of the reversal of findings in the "Bridgegate" cases, where it was determined there was wrongdoing but that it was not the "public corruption" which were the charges for which the defendants were tried - effectively the ruling was the case was "wrongly charged." Had the prosecutors charged the case differently another conviction on different charges might have stood.
In cases related to political figures, the charges are often, but not always, of public corruption nature. They generally relate to defrauding the government, misuse of public funds, accepting a bribe in return for political favors, or some similar charge. They are rarely charges of a RICO or conspiracy nature, or as serious as seditious conspiracy. However, it would certainly not be the first time a political figure was charged with some form of election fraud charges or election interference crimes. The mere fact that someone is a political figure would quite unlikely be grounds that would alone cause any appellate court, let alone the Supreme Court, to accept a case on appeal.
However, yes under the circumstances discussed above relating to acceptable grounds for appeal, it is possible for the Supreme Court to accept an appeal generated from a criminal case. However, it must be remembered this is not a "retrial" of the original case but rather the appellate court reviewing the circumstances only on the grounds of the appeal. You will not get an appeal accepted simply by saying, "I didn't do it and I should have not been found guilty." You have to do a lot better than that. Perhaps in Trump's case, his best defense would be mental incapacity.
Thank you for the clarification and my comments aren't met to detract from your excellent central point that we don't have a "political" criminal code. Unfortunately I'm not sure that we don't have politically biased judges and that in any trial as complex as one charging Trump, there won't be multiple opportunities for the bias to emerge. Key issues could include the necessary intent (mens rea) under various statutes, defenses along the lines of "my lawyers said I was within my rights" , attorney-client and other privileges, 1st amendment questions (did he really intend to set a fire in the Congressional theater) and the more common arguments over including and excluding witnesses and evidence. I'm sure all of this is one reason for AG Garland's cautious, methodical approach combined with the need for jury unanimity. Is it better to have charged and lost, or not to charge at all? I think the former but it's not an easy question.
Bill,
I likewise agree with your comments as well. Although I am neither a lawyer nor do I pretend to be, I do lead a firm with my partner who has multiple law degrees. Our firm does provide legal services, primarily to in-house corporate legal departments, on contracts, intellectual property rights, and litigation support. Our firm’s area of expertise does not extend to criminal prosecutions or defense of them, although we do often provide guidance to corporate executives of our clients on matters related to corporate governance practices and “ethics” matters.
Having said this I do believe despite Trump’s apparent belief in his own cleverness, he is basically a buffoon. He also is surrounded, for a variety of reasons not the least of which is his history of not paying his legal bills, a cartoonish brigade of lawyers of at best marginal competence that is generally unrelated to the areas of law on which they are advising him.
The senior prosecutorial teams within the DOJ are contrastingly extremely competent. I am quite convinced if DOJ decides to bring a case it will see the best of those legal assassins assigned to that team. Were I given the choice of being a DOJ prosecutor on a case against Trump or the opportunity to be his defense counsel that decision would not be a coin flip.
Bill, I followed your exchange with Bruce as best I could. My simple question with reference to charges against Trump should they be brought by the DOJ has to do with whether he would tried by the supreme court given the low odds that a Constitutional issue or issues would be present?
Laurence Tribe, is an American legal scholar and renowned Harvard Law Professor who has argued cases 36 times before the U.S. Supreme Court and 26 times before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. His record in those trials is pretty impressive and he is considered among the leading legal scholars of Constitutional Law. He has cited numerous times both in media interviews and in print his views on specific criminal statutes in the U.S. Criminal Code he believes Trump has violated. The list is reasonably lengthy and the specific crimes are quite serious with severe punishments. None of those would be cases if brought that would first be heard in the Supreme Court.
Bruce, I have been familiar with Tribe for I don't know how many years. Two close friends mine went to Harvard Law School way back when and, of course, I have followed Tribe in recent years.
Fern,
He would not be tried by the Supreme Court but issues arising from a lower court trial or issues stemming from an investigation or indictment by DOJ could make their way to the Supremes.
I have often expected that mental incapacity would be his ultimate defense, especially as his behavior exponentially degraded over time.
The SCOTUS doesn't "re-try" anything. They do have some very narrow fields of original jurisdiction but I doubt it amounts to anywhere near 1 % of their caseload since its establishment. It's an appellate Court.
Absolutely correct. Also, the Supreme Court generally hears only approximately 80 cases in a given term. That is a very small fraction (less than 1%) of the estimated over 10,000 petitions of certiorari they receive each year. Most of the time whatever the lower appellate court has ruled stands. It is quite likely that the would-be emperor Trump would insist on running any convictions through an appeals process. However, he would quite likely have to begin that process in a federal appeals court, not at the Supreme Court. It may or may not ever reach the Supreme Court.