First, it's important to note- Trump won't be getting an appeal on the 1st phase

Also, technically he isn't a convicted felon yet- That will most likely happen at sentencing

Here is the order of what will happen:

1. Trump's team will ask for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict- that will get rejected He will ask the judge to throw out the verdict, and ask the judge to throw out the jury verdict and decide Trump is innocent on his own- that will get rejected

At this point, he will get a conviction and can appeal

He will first appeal to the New York appellate court (that will get rejected)

Then he goes to the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) - he actually has a chance here, but due to the highly democrat partisan nature of this court, it still might now

Then it goes to SCOTUS - where trump has a high chance of reversal


Now there are also routes this could get expressed from trial court straight to supreme court - debated by several constitutional law professors, and former prosecutors. (some of the paths are BS and silly, some are legit possible

I'm going to start with a pathway from one of the most reputable people arguing - Yale constitutional law professor Jed Rubenfeld

https://law.yale.edu/jed-rubenfeld

who's video I used to layout the above timeline

Trump could an emergency temporary restraining order in federal court (this would restrain the judgment of guilt) (starting at 19:45 on the video)

Trump would basically sue the state, and ask Feds to halt the judgment of guilt- based on the various unconditional aspects of the case- which could potentially make it to SCOTUS prior to the election




This video is a great simple description of the case details, and what could be the unconstitutional aspects of it

His main pillars (and some other smaller ones)

- Failure to give notice 6th amendment
-possible bad jury instructions

Here is the full must-watch video









I'm going to be making some more posts, with more arguments from con law professors, and former federal prosecutors- but 1st I think this former federal prosecutor has a good summary of what many of these end with


Leslie Gordon is a person I've posted here a few times- A Georgetown grad, former federal prosecutor, former DOD special agent, Federal trial, Federal Appeals, and Supreme court

Her husband is a Harvard grad, who had multiple appeals and SCOTUS trials- and the rarity of trying cases in 6 different federal circuits

This is a short podcast interview with her about this:

This and the spaces interview- Trump hasn't gotten due process for a few reasons-

One is basically an overall picture - that there were so many restrictions placed on the defense, that they were unable to present a complete case.

Even though some of the restrictions the Judge placed on what could be presented by certain defendants, or what would be allowed to be presented if Trump testified - could individually be arguably technically okay- when all added together for a totality of restrictions it was an unreasonable amount, and unreasonably prohibited the defense from presenting a complete defense. (this along

The restriction of the FEC chairman's allowable testimony was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.

2 prongs of due process failed
- notice
- right to be heard




More to come from more professors and prosecutors....


My opinion is Supreme court won't touch this until all state is exhausted - but the more I read I'm not sure- and I say that because certain people I'm reading have direct relationships with the SCOTUS justices, and have their ears as well- and have called the shots to the T on how certain things would go down recently (while everyone called them crazy at first) i.e scotus cert grant after immunity appeal, and problems with immunity appeal.




cont....

fairly confident the conviction will not stick after appeal