Ahem ... Er ...Jurisdiction

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It seems to me that the New York State case against Trump is a case in which the State of New York is a party. This says to me that Article III, Section 2, Clause 2, kicks in. This looks like a case that should be in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. This case should have been conducted in the Supreme Court of the United States, not in any New York court. Trump needs to take the State of New York to the Supreme Court of the United States and sue for damages and to bring charges against those who have attempted to usurp power reserved to the Supreme Court of the United States.

What a debacle.

If memory serves, Donald Trump is a citizen of the State of New York, ergo, the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does not apply.

Woody

 

[okcBob]

SCOTUS doesn’t hold criminal trials. They are generally an appeals court. They are rarely the first court to hear a case. I think the only trial they ever had was in the 1700’s.
Maybe a Federal district court would be more appropriate

 

[Jason Freeland]

SCOTUS doesn’t hold criminal trials. They are generally an appeals court. I think the only trial they had was in the 1700’s.
Maybe a Federal district court would be more appropriate

Chief justice presides over impeachment trials, is the only thing I recall recent. It was a big deal when Roberts refused to do it for Trump's second impeachment.

 

[okcBob]

Impeachment trials are different than criminal trials. Impeachment trials are political trials. The jury are partisan Senators.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

SCOTUS doesn’t hold criminal trials. They are generally an appeals court. They are rarely the first court to hear a case. I think the only trial they ever had was in the 1700’s.
Maybe a Federal district court would be more appropriate

When a state is a party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Federal district courts only have original jurisdiction in cases involving crimes against the federal government and certain appeals.

In 2000, Bush petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the Florida election recount (Remember the "hanging chad" debacle?). The Supreme Court granted certiorari and ruled in favor of Bush. This wasn't an appeal.

Woody

 

[donner]

IIRC, most criminal trials are state vs an individual or group. By your reading any trial of anyone that the state is a 'party' to would bypass the state courts and go straight to SCOTUS. If the crime violated state law then the prosecutor represents the state's interest, even if it's a locally elected individual. Same as if you murder someone in Tulsa, the Tulsa DA would prosecute you for violating a state law (not a tulsa county or city law).

In this case, though, Trump is 1) a current private citizen and 2) the crimes occurred while he was also a private citizen. That he served as president wouldn't trigger Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 since he wasn't any of the things listed either when tried or when committing the state crime. That he is a current candidate certainly could play into the politics of the matter, but as part of the legal process it doesn't (as i understand things) offer him any more protections than a non candidate is entitled to.

Also, who would 'bring charges against those who have attempted to usurp power reserved to the Supreme Court of the United States'? Can't be trump, he'd have no legal authority to charge anyone. He could sue in civil court, but can't do anything criminal.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The AG of the US would be the one to bring charges of usurpation of power reserved to a particular branch of government.

Woody

 

[donner]

The AG of the US would be the one to bring charges of usurpation of power reserved to a particular branch of government.

Woody

Next question, against whom would the charges be brought? The governor as the leader or the state? The legislature that empowered the prosecutor? The prosecutor him or her self? The grand jury that indicted trump?

The case didn’t move forward without multiple steps and the involvement of numerous people.

But I’m only going on my recollection from con law classes in college. I’m sure there are far more practiced minds that could argue for a jurisdictional issue. I just don’t immediately see it as you stated it.

I’m also wondering what crime the person would actually be charged with. Violating someone’s constitutional rights is a problem that can generate charges I guess, but I’m not sure of what criminal law is broken from usurping the legal jurisdiction between state and federal courts.

If you know the specific crime statue, please say as I’d like to read about it.

Iirc, the feds have been quick to step up and claim jurisdiction when desired, but it’s not a crime for the state to go after state charges.

If the state is wrong then scotus says so upon appeal but again, no criminal crime by state officials per se.