Day in Court
Rudy Giuliani, one of Trump’s attorneys, told The Associated Press on Friday that the White House hopes to get a readout of the information next week, particularly about the use of a longtime government informant who approached members of Trump’s campaign in a possible bid to glean intelligence on Russian efforts to sway the election. Trump has made unproven claims of FBI misconduct and political bias and has denounced the asset as “a spy.” Chicago Tribune – 5/24/18
{Full disclosure: I am not a lawyer. I am a retired government teacher, who for many years spent months of class time teaching students the criminal legal process}
The essence of the American system of justice is an opportunity for fairness. Each side of a legal battle, at the appropriate time, gets to respond to the other. Each side is also given the opportunity to gain a judicial ruling about the legality of the process. It’s a carefully developed system, based on American and English law dating hundreds of years.
In a criminal case, the government, represented by the police and the prosecutor, build a case based on the evidence they can gather. That evidence might include the results of questioning, search warrants, and other information. The process of gathering this is carefully defined by the law, and police and prosecutors are required to prove to a judge the probable cause for warrants, and that warnings were given before questioning.
After the information is gathered, the prosecutor presents the evidence to a Grand Jury. This group of twenty-four citizens is chosen from the area where the case occurred. They listen to the evidence, and to the prosecutor’s explanation of the law. They then conclude whether it is likely a crime has been committed, and if so, issue an indictment.
Once the indictment is issued, the defendant (the person indicted) has the opportunity to view the evidence, and raise questions about the legality of the process used to gather that evidence. They also can raise questions about the legality of the charges. Those questions are decided by a judge before a trial begins, a trial where a second jury of citizens, a petit jury of twelve, determines whether the evidence proving facts in a case reach a higher level of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, or about 90%.)
If the jury determines that the evidence proves the case for the prosecution, they can return a verdict of guilty. If not, then the verdict returned is not guilty. It requires all twelve jurors to agree.
Every citizen, from the list of those indicted for drug crimes in the Newark, Ohio newspaper, to Harvey Weinstein on every television in the nation, is guaranteed this due process of law. Equality in the eyes of the law is a bedrock principle of this nation. From the symbol of the “scales of justice,” weighing the evidence fairly, to the statues of “Lady Justice,” eyes firmly bound closed so she can rule without favor; trust in America’s justice system is based on fairness.
If those with authority could intervene to prevent investigations from starting, or prevent conclusions, then all of the principles we hold would be violated. Harvey Weinstein has been accused of using his political connections and donations to avoid prosecution, and it has taken the “eyes of the world” on his actions to bring him to justice. In the same way, William Lager, founder of the now defunct Education Classroom of Tomorrow (ECOT) schools in Ohio, used his political connections to try to stave off investigation. He managed to take $60 million in state funds, and only now faces possible charges.
Rudy Giuliani, lawyer for President Trump, believes that the President, the subject of a Department of Justice investigation, should have the right to see the evidence before the Grand Jury or indictment. He believes the President should be able to make a “ruling” on whether the grounds for investigation were legal, before a court can hear the case. He believes the President has the “unitary authority” to intervene on his own behalf to stop the investigation.
To use a legal term, this is a “prima facie” case of undue influence. If the President has committed no crimes, let the process play out (as Senator McConnell and House Speaker Ryan call for) and take the argument to court. To interfere in the legal process, as Giuliani demands, is the act of a guilty man, unwilling to face the light of day a courtroom would provide.
I’m sure Harvey Weinstein and William Lager and those poor drug criminals in Newark would like the same power. But justice is balanced, and justice is blind. They must wait for their day in court, and so should the President.
