Legal Analysis: Donald Trump’s Trial, Potential Prison Sentence, and Presidential Pardon

TFD – Delve into the legal complexities surrounding Donald Trump’s trial, potential prison sentence, and the prospect of a presidential pardon.

We received a tonne of questions when TFD asked for yours regarding the approaching first criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, for his involvement in hush money payments made to women who claimed to have had affairs with him prior to the 2016 election. It wasn’t all suitable for printing.

However, there were several excellent and well-considered questions. For a representative sample that clarifies the issue and provides context from TFD’s reporters and coverage, continue reading.

For the most part, the questions are straight from reader submissions; but, for some, I’ve combined several submissions into a single question. By the way, Trump has entered a not guilty plea in the case and denies having the affairs.

I went to TFD’s lead legal analyst Laura Coates with the most often asked question, which was basically: Could Trump really end up in jail? It was asked in a variety of ways.

Coates: Trump could potentially spend more than ten years in prison if he is found guilty on every count. In New York, the 34 felony counts are categorized as Class E felonies, which is the lowest category of felonies in the state.

While the maximum sentence for each of those counts is four years, the maximum sentence for this kind of felony in New York is twenty years. The judge will have the authority to choose whether such sentences would be served concurrently or consecutively. Given that the charges are not violent in nature and that Trump has no prior criminal history, the judge may also decide to imprison him for a duration that is significantly less than the maximum sentence.

Another option is that the court decides to put him on probation instead of sending him to jail, with the threat of going to jail if he disobeys the terms of his probation. Secret Service would end up like the elephant in the cell if the judge decided to imprison after a conviction. The unprecedented nature of incarcerating a former president would raise questions about how best to ensure equal treatment under the law and security for a former president.

Weeknights at 11 p.m. ET, watch Coates’ show where she will address a ton of additional questions from the audience.

I inquired with the Secret Service about any preparations they had made in case Trump ended up in jail. As expected, a representative informed me that this is “something we can not comment on at this time.”

However, keep in mind that, unless they choose to decline it, former presidents and their spouses are legally entitled to lifetime protection from the Secret Service.

No. The New York state civil rights statute restricts what is permissible, even though several states regularly broadcast trials. In principle, the judge, Juan Merchan, may provide an exception, but he forbade cameras from filming Trump’s arraignment the previous year.

As was the case during his New York civil fraud prosecution, it is possible that pictures and videos recorded inside the courthouse will be used before the proceedings even begin.

Similarly, there are probably regulations that prevent the broadcast of his federal trials if or when they take place on allegations of election meddling and the handling of secret material. If he is found guilty of influencing elections, his trial in Georgia will be shown on television.

Indeed. The foundation of the legal system is the notion that defendants are there to respond to accusations, and New York law mandates that a defendant appear in person during the trial.

A few are not the norm. Trump may request an exception and give up his privilege to attend, but the prosecution may oppose. Disorderly or disruptive defendants can also be removed from court during their trial.

Katelyn Polantz of CNN reports that Daniels’ remarks and version of events are probably going to play a significant role in the lawsuit. It goes without saying that Daniels will be a key witness for the prosecution, and that Trump’s team will want to restrict her remarks.

As Polantz points out, trials are unpredictable events. Until it happens, we won’t be quite sure who will be called or what they will be permitted to say.

The accusation against Trump—which he disputes and which is lawful—isn’t strictly true. A contract between two parties represents the hush money, which is not always illegal. Hush money was given to former Playboy model Karen McDougal by the Trump-supporting National Enquirer publisher, and it was given to Daniels separately by Trump’s fixer and former lawyer Michael Cohen.

However, in this instance, the payments broke campaign finance laws since they were meant to conceal information from voters prior to the 2016 election. The parent company of National Enquirer acknowledged misconduct, Cohen entered a guilty plea to breaking campaign law, and he was sentenced to prison.

Due to Department of Justice regulation, federal prosecutors were unable to charge Trump for the payments while he was president and chose not to do so after he stepped down. Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, then filed this lawsuit. Trump is charged with fabricating financial records, a state criminal in New York, in an attempt to utilize illicit campaign contributions to sway the 2016 election, a federal offense.

Elie Honig, senior legal commentator for CNN, provides the following response: He had better, since that’s the indictment against him. A misdemeanor is committed when business records are merely falsified. The lowest degree felony in New York is the charge of fabricating company records in order to commit another offense. A further offense in this case is the misuse of campaign funds. So that is a necessary showing that the prosecution must make.

Honig goes on to say that if Trump loses the lawsuit, people should watch for this peculiar pairing of a federal offense (campaign finance violations) with a state criminal (falsifying business records) to be brought up during the trial.

Honig: Most likely not. Before the trial, he has been arguing all this week, and the New York appeals court has heard his cases in a startlingly short amount of time—sometimes less than an hour. No one can tell what will happen in the future. and he might attempt to file further appeals higher up the chain, but the appeals courts have so far been swift to dismiss them.

Nothing about this situation is typical. According to his own legal strategy, Trump wants to drag out the court case as long as possible in the hopes that it won’t end before the election.

In federal court, this tactic is working so far. His federal election meddling case is on hold until later this month, when the US Supreme Court takes up what most people regard to be an absurd argument for total immunity. His Miami federal trial about sensitive documents is moving slowly. The state’s allegations of improper behavior in the personal life of the DA leading the case has caused a delay in his trial in Fulton County, Georgia, regarding charges of state election tampering.

To push down the start of the trial, Trump has also attempted to appeal the judge’s pretrial rulings in New York, but thus far that strategy hasn’t been successful in this particular instance.

Not at all. Trump is legally entitled to know their names in New York, but the public will not be able to see who they are. There is a gag order in place that prevents Trump from speaking about them.

However, we will find out through the jurors’ extensive interrogation regarding their lifestyle, news sources, and political views.

Prior to this trial, CNN legal analyst Norman Eisen edited a book on Trump. Eisen now writes for CNN Opinion that the former president may be hoping that his strategy of constant motions, grievances, and lost appeals will tarnish the New York jury pool and produce “one angry juror” who is willing to disobey the law and vote to acquit him regardless of the circumstances.

This is an excellent hypothetical question that is basically unanswerable. First, it makes several assumptions, including the need for Trump to be found guilty, given a prison sentence, finish his appeals process, report to jail, and win the election. That is a highly specialized scenario with a short timetable and a highly erratic combination of events. But now let’s get started.

I sought the advice of Frank Bowman, an emeritus law professor at the University of Missouri who specializes in criminal law and wrote a book on the impeachment procedure, regarding handling a president who had served time in prison. He stated that in theory, a person may serve under the Constitution “even if he’s a convicted felon or even if he’s a convicted felon in the joint.”

However, timing would prevent this hypothetical scenario from ever happening. According to Bowman, “This stuff takes a long time, and the appeals would drag out,” most likely past Election and Inauguration Days.

After a conviction, Trump’s opponents might try again to impeach him or challenge his presidency on the grounds of the 14th Amendment, though those strategies have already been explored and rejected.

Bowman surmised that if Trump was found guilty in this state prosecution, there might be a defense based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which forbids states from interfering with the exercise of federal power, which could keep Trump out of state prison. However, that would be something new.

However, as president, Trump could attempt to pardon himself or direct the Bureau of Prisons to take action such as confining him in the White House if he were found guilty in either of his two federal trials and given a federal prison sentence. Once again, Bowman contends that this is unlikely to happen and is unknown ground that is unexpected under US law.