Former President Donald Trump should appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if convicted by a Manhattan jury, conservative radio host Mark Levin advised Wednesday.
According to Breitbart News, Levin expressed serious concerns over constitutional issues and the handling of the trial, urging immediate Supreme Court intervention.
The jury began its deliberations on Wednesday after Judge Juan Merchan issued instructions. Levin cited these instructions as problematic, highlighting that the jury needed to be unanimous on guilt or innocence but did not need to agree on the underlying federal crime for a state felony charge. This unusual directive has raised eyebrows and added to the controversy surrounding the trial.
Levin also pointed out that jurors were prohibited from taking a printed copy of the over 50-page jury instructions into their deliberations. This decision has puzzled observers and even drawn criticism from some center-left commentators, who found the judge’s actions unusual.
Earlier, Levin accused Judge Merchan of political motives, suggesting that the jury instructions aimed to secure a conviction. This accusation adds another layer of complexity to an already contentious trial.
Trump faces 34 counts, with a potential prison sentence of over 100 years. Given the gravity of these charges, Levin argues that constitutional issues warrant immediate Supreme Court intervention, bypassing the usual state appellate courts.
Levin drew a parallel to the Bush v. Gore case, where the Supreme Court intervened in a state’s voting system deliberations due to constitutional concerns. This historical reference underscores the significance Levin places on the current trial and its implications for the 2024 elections.
The trial has legal and political ramifications, as the decisions made could influence public perception and the political landscape. Levin’s comments reflect a broader concern about the intersection of law and politics in high-profile cases.
Observers and commentators are closely watching the trial, noting the judge's decisions and the potential impact on future legal and political proceedings. Levin’s statements have added fuel to the fire, intensifying the scrutiny on the trial’s conduct.
The jury instructions issued by Judge Merchan have been a focal point of criticism. By not allowing jurors to take a printed copy of the lengthy instructions, the judge's decision has been seen as adding to the confusion and complexity of the deliberations.
Levin's accusations of political bias add another dimension to the trial. He suggested that the judge's actions were influenced by political motives, aiming to secure a conviction against Trump. This claim, while contentious, has resonated with some observers who are already skeptical of the trial’s fairness.
Mark Levin's call for former President Donald Trump to appeal any conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court underscores the trial's high stakes and contentious nature. Levin’s concerns about constitutional issues and the handling of jury instructions have added to the controversy.
The jury’s deliberations, influenced by Judge Juan Merchan's directives, have sparked debate and criticism. Levin’s comparison to historical cases and accusations of political bias highlight the trial's significance in the broader political and legal landscape. As the trial progresses, the potential impact on the 2024 elections remains a critical point of focus.
