Trump's conviction was neither unfair nor partisan

BDN’s Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.

John Wilson is a retired lawyer living in Hampden.

It appears that Bangor Daily News columnist Michael Cianchette has decided to join the ranks of those who choose to criticize the functioning of our justice system when they are unhappy with its results. I respectfully disagree with Cianchette (and U.S. Senator Susan Collins).

The New York Legislature (not Joe Biden and Alvin Bragg) passed a law that makes it a misdemeanor to falsify business records with the intent to commit or conceal a crime (New York Penal Law Section 175.10). As of November 1986, when this law took effect, Donald Trump had not yet falsified his business records to hide the fact that he had paid money to remain silent, much less have appeared at the Presidency.

Cianchette, in his column in the June 8-9 edition of the BDN, disputes that the underlying criminal activity in which Trump engaged was an offense for which he was never separately charged. He appears concerned that the illegal means Trump used to conceal this activity were simply hush-money payments counted as legal fees.

When the New York Legislature passed Penal Law 175.10, it made no exception as to the nature of the underlying crime being concealed and when the existing evidence was presented to 12 jurors, they concluded unanimously, beyond reasonable doubt (the standard required for a criminal offense). case) that Trump’s actions met the requirements for conviction under the law. It appears Cianchette’s problem is with the legislature, not the prosecutor. Would Cianchette suggest, instead, that a district attorney only prosecutes under laws he or she deems worthy?

Cianchette also expresses concern that Trump has been prosecuted as a criminal because of who he is, rather than what he actually did, a sentiment also expressed by Collins. As for the felony charge, it was Parliament, not Bragg, that defined the activity in question as a crime. And wait, if a jury unanimously found Trump guilty on all counts, how can we conclude that he wasn’t prosecuted for what he did?

New York chooses its district attorneys by popular vote, and given our mostly two-party system, that person will likely be either a Democrat or a Republican — in Bragg’s case, a Democrat. New York law does not prohibit a prosecutor from prosecuting people of a different party, nor does it protect a person from prosecution based on their current, past, or future political status. When evidence emerges suggesting a crime has been committed, as was the case in the Trump hush money case, it is up to the prosecutor to make the decision to prosecute based on the evidence.

Yes, a district attorney has the discretion not to pursue a conviction even when there is evidence to suggest a crime was committed. But deciding not to pursue this case against Trump because he was the former president or hopes to become one again, or because he is a member of an opposing political party, would be doing precisely what Cianchette and Collins denounce : make the decision to lay charges. depending on who he is. Collins is correct when she says: “It is fundamental to our American justice system that the government prosecutes alleged criminal conduct, regardless of the identity of the accused. » She is wrong, I believe, to suggest that Trump does not respect this principle as a former or future president.

Why not just give Trump a fine and a slap on the wrist, as Cianchette wonders? Maybe that’s exactly what’s going to happen. He has not yet been sentenced, which can only happen after a guilty verdict. But we must give this decision the same respect as the rest of our legal process, a process that sets an example for the world.

When a prosecution results in a verdict unpopular with the accused or his supporters, it is not only wrong, but also corrosive to our legal system, to suggest that it is the result of a partisan process or unfair.