After being convicted in a New York court, President Trump has expressed his dissatisfaction claiming that the entire process was rigged against him. He has accused the proceedings of being a corrupt effort to persecute him and influence the 2024 presidential election. On the other hand, his opponents have strongly criticized him for eroding the public’s trust in the criminal justice system and thereby causing harm to democracy. This criticism has been amplified by various media outlets.
Critics who fail to see the bigger picture are in fact disregarding a critical principle that plays a vital role in safeguarding our republic. It is imperative to note that criticizing the justice system when it oversteps its boundaries or makes errors is crucial to the preservation of our freedom under the rule of law.
Our nation’s founding members were well aware of the importance of this requirement.
In the renowned libel case People v. Croswell, Alexander Hamilton, who was representing the defendant, cautioned that the most perilous and fatal form of tyranny is executed by targeting and sacrificing individual persons, all while disguising the act with the facade of law and using tribunals that are partial and dependent.
Hamilton urged Americans to remain vigilant and take a bold stance against any measures that threaten their rights. He believed in resisting such measures until the demagogues and tyrants are overthrown from their imagined thrones. These remarks do not suggest that Hamilton was against democracy, as any sensible American would agree.
Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton’s rival, shared a similar belief. During his presidency, Jefferson granted pardons to publishers who were convicted under the Sedition Act of 1798. This act was deemed unconstitutional by Jefferson, and he believed that the courts had participated in serious injustices by convicting defendants under it. The pardoning power is included in the US Constitution and many state constitutions, and it is regularly exercised precisely because prosecutors and courts can make mistakes and even intentionally misuse their power over the lives and freedoms of citizens.
Federal law recognizes these dangers and has taken steps to address them. “Deprivation of rights under color of law” is explicitly prohibited and punished under Title 18 of the United States Code. This provision acknowledges that those in positions of power within the justice system may abuse their authority and act unlawfully. The United States Department of Justice’s website notes that this provision can be applied to police officers, prison guards, judges, district attorneys, and other public officials. This acknowledgment by the government highlights the importance of not blindly accepting all aspects of the justice system and holding those in positions of power accountable for their actions.
Those familiar with American history are aware that the issue of politicized and corrupt abuses of the justice system is still prevalent in modern times. This problem tends to surface when political tensions are high and communities are agitated against leaders they intensely dislike. In the 1960s, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was brought to trial by Alabama state authorities for allegedly committing perjury in connection with his tax returns.
The conviction of Dr. King was a blatant and calculated effort to undermine a crucial American political and social movement by removing its most influential figure. Despite the all-white composition of the Alabama jury, they recognized the malicious nature of the charges and ultimately acquitted him. Dr. King expressed his gratitude to the jury for their impartial and honorable decision, as well as his admiration for the Alabama judge’s dignified conduct throughout the trial.
In certain situations, it is permissible and necessary to criticize prosecutors and courts. However, the essential question at present is whether such criticism is justified in the case of President Trump’s New York conviction. Is it reasonable for impartial Americans today to echo Dr. King’s words and congratulate the Manhattan jury for a “fair” verdict and commend Judge Merchan for his “high and noble” handling of the case?
According to esteemed CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, the answer to this question can be found without depending on Trump or his supporters. Honig wrote an evaluation in New York Magazine stating that “Prosecutors Got Trump, But They Contorted the Law.”