(Dmytro “Henry” Aleksandrov, Headline USA) Criminal defense attorney Michael O’Mara said on May 31, 2024, that there is a strong chance that Donald Trump’s legal team will overturn the guilty verdict against him in his sham trial in New York.
Trump’s appeal would be based on issues like the unprecedented nature of the case and Judge Juan Merchan not sequestering the jury, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig and O’Mara said on CNN News Central, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“So I think the top grounds for appeal is the fact that we had a state court here, a state prosecutor, enforcing in part a federal election crime for the first time actually in U.S. history,” Honig said.
Honig then said that this is a very significant case because it has never happened in the history of the United States.
“We’ve never before seen a case where any state or county level prosecutor has charged, as part of their case, or as a sub-part of their case as a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act. So this is the first time that’s happened. It was briefed to Judge Merchan. Judge Merchan said, ‘I find it okay, I find it acceptable under New York state law.’ But that‘s going to be issue 1A on the appeal. We don’t know what the answer will be. It’s unprecedented,” Honig said.
Host John Berman then asked O’Mara how “successful” the appeal could be.
“I think there’s a great likelihood, and the reason why is there are a number of issues. Elie brought one up. I have always complained about the way this jury was or was not handled during the trial. I think with the massive focus on this case they should have been sequestered. They certainly should have been sequestered during the deliberations. I think they should have been sequestered for the week before,” he said.
O’Mara then continued explaining what would happen next.
“At this point, they’ll find out who the jurors are. They will backtrack them to every house that they went to, to watch the billboards they saw, and the newsstands that passed by, so I have a real concern that the judge who has to ensure the freedom given by the jury process wasn’t because this jury was not well-protected. And that’s only one of one hundred,” he added.
