I have read and listened to many sources of legal opinions on this case from Johnathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz, and others how it was handled improperly.
CNN senior legal analyst
Elie Honig has criticized the New York criminal case against Trump as an "unjustified mess" and argued prosecutors "contorted the law" to get the former president.
Honig also explained another appellate issue, arguing that it was unprecedented to have Bragg, a county prosecutor, enforcing federal law.
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig has previously said that this case was legally dubious, uniquely targeted Trump and could not succeed outside of an anti-Trump district.
CNN legal correspondent Paula Reid said Sunday that while any appeals process was unlikely to play out before the election, "there are some legitimate questions to be appealed here."
Erin Burnett, a CNN host, asked former prosecutor Mark O'Mara during her show on Thursday about Trump's odds on appeal. "I actually think they’re pretty good because there are a number of significant issues [with] the way this trial was handled," O'Mara said.
"There is an appeal that could have legs," Arlo Devlin-Brown, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan,
told Politico. "The combination of the prosecution offering three different theories as to how the false records could have violated state election law, limited instruction on what some of those theories required, and the fact that jurors were not required to agree on which had been proven creates a real issue for the appeal," Devlin-Brown said.
Judge:
Acting Supreme Court justice
Juan Merchan was handpicked for this case rather than randomly selected. This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization.
We learned later that Merchan has contributed to a group to stop the GOP and Trump. Merchan’s daughter is also a Democratic organizer who has helped raise millions against Trump and the GOP and for the Democrats.
What is equally disturbing is the failure of Merchan to protect the rights of the defendant and what even critics admit were distinctly pro-prosecution rulings in the trial. It is not just the appearance of a conflict with Judge Merchan but a record of highly biased decisions.
The Charges:
The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine. With no federal prosecution, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory not only to zap a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but to allow him to try violations of not only federal election law but also federal taxation violations. In other words, the Justice Department would not prosecute federal violations, so Bragg effectively did it in state court.
The indictment claimed a violation under New York’s election law 17-152 that the falsification of business records were committed to further another crime as an unlawful means to influence the election. However, in a maddeningly circular theory, that other crime could be the falsification of business records. It could also be violations of federal election and taxation laws, which Trump was never charged with, let alone convicted of.
Immaterial and prejudicial Evidence:
Judge Merchan allowed a torrent of immaterial and prejudicial evidence to be introduced into the trial by the prosecution. That included testimony from porn actress
Stormy Daniels that went into details about having sex with Trump. She included a clear suggestion that Trump raped her.
** Isn't this what the Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction was overturned for?
Here’s what you need to know about why Weinstein’s rape conviction was thrown out and what happens next.
apnews.com
Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election.
Multiple choice for the undisclosed secondary crime that didn't have to be Unanimous. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system. While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been. We still don't know specifically what that was.
Maybe everybody else is wrong and you guys are right... I guess we will see in time.