“You know, it’s not a slam-dunk. But I think that survives a motion to dismiss, and then let the jury decide.”
—-Jerry H. Goldfeder, a special counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP and an expert in New York state election law, to the New York Times regarding Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg’s supposedly imminent indictment and prosecution of former President Donald Trump.
That is an flat-out unethical endorsement of prosecutorial abuse of power, for not only a lawyer, but a lawyer in a major Manhattan law firm, being quoted as authority in the New York Times, uncritically, of course.
An ethical prosecutor does not bring a case unless he or she is certain that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The issue isn’t whether the prosecution will prevail, but whether the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to justify it prevailing with an objective and fair jury. Surviving a motion to dismiss is not an ethical standard; it’s the bottom-of-the-barrel standard. The judge agreeing that the case has no merit at all as a matter of law, is not the equivalent of holding that the case should not be brought by an ethical prosecutor. “Hey, who knows if the guy is guilty or if we have the evidence to convict? Let’s just get it in front of a jury and see what they think!”
Unspoken in this case: “After all, the point is to make Trump look bad, right? If we can get a conviction, it’s frosting on the cake.”
You have to admit, Trump is fortunate in his cast of foes. What a disgusting, repellent group.
The quote above ends a New York Times piece yesterday, “The Legal Intricacies That Could Make or Break the Case Against Trump/To try to convict the former president of a felony, prosecutors might attempt to connect state election law to a federal election,” of which periodically neutral pundit Ann Althouse exclaims, “‘Legal Intricacies,'”‘ indeed! These are obvious and terrible problems with the prosecution. It’s not subtle! Alvin Bragg, please don’t inflict this on us.”
“Please”? Bragg isn’t worthy of “please.” We shouldn’t have to beg prosecutors not to use the criminal laws to benefit their party and persecute its opposition.
Althouse also reacts to this paragraph, introducing Goldfeder’s unethical quote…
“And there are a few additional advantages for the district attorney: His case will play out in state court, with a state judge — possibly Juan M. Merchan, the even-keeled jurist who oversaw the conviction of Mr. Trump’s family business — and a jury in deep blue Manhattan.”
…by writing, “And it’s so repulsive for the NYT to end this article by bucking up readers with the hope that the state judge will be biased. A perfectly concise comment over at the NYT: ‘Novel legal theory in a political prosecution destroys trust in rule of law.'”
5 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Lawyer Jerry Goldfeder”
“I think the goal is to never have this man be in a position of power again — not even [as] a crossing guard,” Hostin, a lawyer, said on the show.
Again, Mr. Goldfeder would say the same thing, as would almost everyone living or working in New York City.
I think that’s right.
The sublime arrogance of the East Coast liberal. They’re smarter and better credentialed than everyone else, and they’re also superior human beings. Ergo, whatever they say, or think, goes.
Remember the salsa ad? “New York City!? Get a rope!” I understand that sentiment more every day.
Once again the Babylon Bee nails it: