#990: The Verdict?

Sidney Lumet’s 1982 film The Verdict, based on a novel by celebrated attorney Barry Reed, has long been considered one of the greatest trial-based films of all time. It’s no wonder for the simple reason that the movie had it all: a dream cast (Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, and James Mason) a gripping screenplay by the young David Mamet, an equally gripping plotline, real flesh-and-blood characters, and world-class directing. In a deceptively simple tale, Newman plays hard-drinking Frank Galvin, who is a cynical lawyer on the skids. Then a vital, young woman dies in a Catholic hospital, and Frank smells blood. Suddenly, with something to fight for, Frank comes alive, exploding in the courtroom, taking on both the hospital and the Catholic Church. Tellingly, the original final draft of David Mamet's screenplay contained no verdict. Producer Richard D. Zanuck commented that without a verdict, the title would require a question mark on advertising materials making it "The Verdict?". Director Sidney Lumet convinced Mamet to add a verdict so that the film could have a third-act dénouement. Hence, it became The Verdict . . . plain, simple, and declarative.

Having read the first paragraph of this week’s essay, you are no doubt aware that it is not about a great motion picture. If it were, you would be reading it on my other blog, Tales From, Hollywood & Vine. And you no doubt have already noticed that I am using the original title for the movie . . . The Verdicts. Indeed, this piece is about both the verdict handed down by a jury of 12 Manhattanites against the former POTUS - 12 men and women found Trump GUILTY on each of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a case stemming from a payment that silenced porn star Stormy Daniels - as well as what the verdict of Judge Juan Merchan will be when he announces the sentence against Donald Trump on July 11, as well as what verdict the American public will give come November 5 - precisely 153 days from now. Just as a wide swath of the American public - those who actually paid attention throughout the trial’s 7 weeks held their breath awaiting the jury’s decision - so too are an even wider swath of the public waiting to see what verdict the public will issue; will it matter that Donald Trump is a convicted felon?

As the jury foreperson called out each guilty verdict, the former president became transformed. He was no longer a man to whom the laws of gravity no longer applied, but a defendant in a courtroom like any other; one who now faces the indignities of sentencing—potentially including prison time. He has said that he plans to appeal, and an appeals court could eventually toss out the conviction—but that would be a long ways away, almost certainly after voters have finished casting their ballots in November. And even if an appeal succeeds, there is no undoing the moment when the country first saw a former president convicted of crimes in a court of law. Then too, in the just-finished trial, Trump was entering as a non-felon. Now he will enter a series of trials - in 2 Federal cases in Washington, D.C., and one in Georgia - he enters the courtroom a convicted felon. And that, my loyal readers, can make all the difference in the world.

Trump did not help himself one iota when, exiting the courtroom, the first former POTUS found guilty of committing felonies, continued right where he left off: calling the trial “the Biden trials” and a “kangaroo court,” proclaiming his innocence, and accusing both judge and jury of being biased political hacks and a couple of dozen other things. Perhaps no one told him that attacking the judge who holds your very future in his hands is not the smartest move on the chessboard.

My personal feeling about the decision was best summed up by New York City Councilmember Yusef Salaam, one of the Exonerated Five, a group of Black and Latino men who were wrongly convicted of raping a jogger in Central Park when they were teenagers. In his official statement he said: “Even though Donald Trump wanted us executed even when it was proven that we were innocent, I do not take pleasure at today’s verdict.” He added: “We should be proud that today the system worked. But we should be somber that we Americans have an ex-president who has been found guilty on 34 separate felony charges.”

Amen.

While some Democrats were singing a Hallelujah chorus as a result of the verdict, WinREd, a major conservative money-raising website, proudly announced that it had crashed due to so many contributions being made to Donald Trump. They claimed that within the first 24 hours after Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts, his supporters sent in more than $34 million worth of donations. What percentage of this take will go to his presidential campaign - as opposed to paying his attorneys - is anyone’s guess.

There is no doubt that Trump and his legal team will appeal Judge Merchan’s sentencing decision, regardless of what it may be. Just yesterday Trump said that he would accept home confinement or jail time, but in the same breath warned "I think it'd be tough for the public to take. You know, at a certain point, there's a breaking point." There is a faintly “dog whistle-like” quality to this statement, reminiscent of Trump’s September 2020 “Stand back and stand by” message to the “Proud Boys” and other white supremacists. I for one shivered at hearing this. Remember, according to a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), “Recent [gun] purchasers and owners who always or nearly always carried firearms in public were more supportive of and willing to engage in political violence than other subsets of firearm owners.” One suspects that Trump and his team didn’t need a scientific study to understand this . . .

It is the Trump team’s hope - and expectation - that the appeals process will eventually reach the United States Supreme Court who, they fully believe, will overturn the verdict. But that likely would not happen until well after November 5, the day of the national elections. Many leading Democrats and legal scholars have already pointedly spoken about the inherent problem of this particular SCOTUS weighing in on a Trump appeal. This court has a deeply conservative majority; 3 of its 4 newest members were named by Donald Trump, the only president who, having lost the popular vote, was nonetheless able to appoint 3 justices. For quite some time, various legal scholars - some liberal, some conservative - have been calling for Justices Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves from any and all cases involving Donald Trump. Both have publicly refused to recuse. In matter of fact, there is no binding Supreme Court ethics code to force them to do so. The roll of the Chief Justice is murky; he has nothing more than the power of moral and political persuasion. Good luck to him.

A recent New York Times op-ed by Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), likely Congress’ leading Constitutional scholar, suggested that there well be a legal way to recuse the two justices, " . . . not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law." In his essay, Rep. Raskin who, prior to entering Congress spent 25 years teaching Constitution Law at American Unviersity, wrote: The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455. Raskin explained the clause thusly: “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The only justices in the federal judiciary are the ones on the Supreme Court. This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. Ignoring it would trespass on the constitutional separation of powers because the justices would essentially be saying that they have the power to override a congressional command.

Yet another verdict to be determined.

Precisely what lasting effect Donald Trump’s recent conviction will have on the 2024 election is, at this point, nearly impossible to gauge. To say that his hardcore supporters will steadfastly remain in his corner goes without saying; to them, he is still the guy, who 2 weeks before the 2016 Iowa caucuses proclaimed he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and he "wouldn't lose any voters." Not that long ago, his legal team suggested in federal court that a president could order SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival and — unless he was impeached and convicted by Congress — be immune from criminal prosecution. This issue of presidential immunity is currently awaiting a public pronouncement by the SOCTUS. No one knows for sure what effect Trump’s 34-count conviction will have on those voters who self-identify as “Independent.” Let’s face it: we live in an age where there are as many polling firms as there are stars in the heavens (to murder an old MGM tagline).

At the moment, we are living in David Mamet’s original version of the 1982 film - which garnered 5 Academy Award Nominations - The Verdict? Whether or not reality will eventually mirror the Sidney Lumet/Richard D. Zanuck version (sans question mark) is anyone’s guess. Don’t pay attention to the daily polls; they only project the stats their financial backers pay for. We are the only jury that counts. We are the ones who will ultimately add that “third act dénouement.” It is up to we, the jury, to remove that question mark (e.g., “The Verdict?), and make the title plain, simple, and at last, declarative.

THE VERDICT!