Former President Donald Trump’s legal team may be able to secure a quick review of his recent hush money conviction in Manhattan from the U.S. Supreme Court, according to renowned Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz. Following Trump’s 34-count felony conviction last Thursday, he and his attorneys vowed to immediately appeal the decision.
Dershowitz explained that although the typical practice is for all potential appeals within the New York state court system to be exhausted before reaching the Supreme Court, there has been speculation about the possibility of expediting this process. Some have even called on the Supreme Court to intervene at an earlier stage in order to restore a sense of fairness before the presidential election.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) urged the Supreme Court to “step in” and overturn Trump’s conviction, citing concerns about the politically driven trial and its impact on public trust in America’s justice system. He argued that the case was an attempt to damage Trump’s reputation among voters and undermine his election prospects.
During an interview with podcaster Megyn Kelly on Friday, Dershowitz suggested that Trump’s legal team should hasten their appeal so that the New York Court of Appeals can hear it. However, he noted that appeals to this court are not guaranteed and typically require approval from either the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court or directly from the New York Court of Appeals itself.
Dershowitz advised Trump’s attorneys to bypass the Appellate Division due to concerns about potential bias among its judges, who are elected and may face backlash if they rule in favor of Trump. Instead, he suggested that they should directly petition the highest appeals court in New York state and request an expedited process to bring their case before the Supreme Court.
To argue for a swift review by the Supreme Court, Trump’s team should emphasize two points: firstly, that the state’s highest court recently overturned Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction due to improper testimony allowed during his trial; and secondly, that the judge in Trump’s case allegedly failed to properly instruct the jury on why prosecutors chose not to call former Trump Organization CFO Alan Weisselberg as a witness.
Weisselberg could have refuted the prosecution’s main witness, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, potentially altering the outcome of the trial. By presenting these arguments and seeking an expedited review from the Supreme Court, Trump’s legal team aims to demonstrate that the hasty conviction was politically motivated and needs further scrutiny before the election.
