Manhatten District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s case against former President Donald Trump relies heavily on the existence of a federal crime that Mr. Bragg neither charges nor fully specifies, because without that crime as the rationale and motive for President Trump’s allegedly falsified book-keeping entries, those entries would only be at best misdemeanors on which the statute of limitations has expired.
Up to this point, conservative commentators and President Trump’s lawyers have objected that federal agencies who already looked at the matter have concluded that there was no federal crime, as did Mr. Bragg’s predecessor. However, this is far from the most accurate or compelling defense. The best defense should be that any citizen, President Trump included, is entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
President Trump has never been found guilty of this hypothetical crime in a court of law, and has never even been charged with it. He therefore remains entirely innocent of that crime in the eyes of the law. Mr. Bragg may not build a case that depends on the presumption of President Trump’s guilt on a matter where he is legally entitled to that presumption of innocence.
Unless Mr. Bragg can point to a court record where President Trump was found guilty, he cannot use his own presumption that President Trump is or might be found guilty to anchor his case. And, without such a record, the judge must dismiss the case since it would revert to misdemeanors past their sell-by date.
Should the judge fail to dismiss, President Trump’s lawyers should immediately make one thing clear: that they will respond to any assertion by Mr. Bragg that President Trump has committed a federal crime regarding a matter where he is still entitled to the presumption of innocence, never having been found guilty in a court of law, by claiming a mistrial on the grounds that Mr. Bragg has misled and thus improperly influenced the jury.
And they should also make clear that, given the context, urgency, and national importance of the case, they will ask the court of appeals to intervene immediately instead of waiting for the end of the trial.
