Q&A of the Day – The Difference in a Trump Trial in SFL vs. D.C.
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: @brianmuddradio Please explain why the Trump trial happening in SFL helps Trump. Also- if it’s good for Trump why would the prosecutor bring the case here?
Bottom Line: As former President Donald Trump is set to be arraigned for the second time in two and a half months today these are two good questions with two assumptive answers. I say assumptive answers because both questions can be answered but at this especially early stage of the process, well in advance of jury selection, which is central to the notion that South Florida serves Trump better than Washington, D.C. - the benefit is based on purely on perception. The perception that a case heard within a state he lives in and won twice will provide something of a home-field advantage as opposed to the ultimate legal road game in D.C.’s swamp.
In an ideal world a “jury of peers”, as is laid out in the 6th Amendment, wouldn’t be subjective in terms of making determinations under the law. As we’re all well aware, this world isn’t ideal, and people often aren’t entirely objective. Even, when serving as a juror, when one’s explicitly called upon to be. The perception that Donald Trump stands to potentially benefit from a South Florida trial comes down to a numbers game. The 37-count indictment brought against Donald Trump are federal charges and federal juries are comprised of 12-jurors. In order for a “guilty” verdict to be reached a unanimous decision by the jury must be reached. The legal standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Reasonable doubt allows for room for a certain degree of subjectivity in the eyes of the beholder. Now what we don’t know is how specifically strong the evidence is on any of these charges and how strong of a defense will be presented by Trump’s team in the case. But what we can do is play the demographics game.
It’s safe to say that not only is every potential member of a jury familiar with our former president but likely has an opinion of our former president. In Washington D.C., that opinion as illustrated by the popular vote was about as close to unanimous as you will find in an election. Donald Trump won only 5.4% of the 2020 Presidential vote in the District of Columbia. Now here’s the thing. While the arraignment of Donald Trump will take place in Miami today, we don’t know where his trial, and thus jury selection will take place someday. The case has been brought in the Southern District of Florida. Under law the trial must take place within it. However, there’s no mandate as to where within it, it must take place. There are four options due to five federal court houses being present within the Southern District (the fifth in Key West isn't an option in this case). Those four are:
- Fort Lauderdale
- Fort Pierce
- Miami
- West Palm Beach
There’s been an assumption that because the arraignment is taking place in Miami that the trial itself will eventually take place in Miami, however that’s not a safe assumption. While any federal courthouse within the district may be used, legal precedent states that cases are to be heard in the federal courthouse closest to where the crimes were committed. Should that precedent be applied in this case the federal courthouse in West Palm Beach would obviously be the location. And of course, even within South Florida location matters. Those are four different court houses in four different counties with four different jury pools. By way of 2020 election results, Fort Lauderdale would be the least favorable location - where Trump won just under 35% of the vote – with the most favorable being Fort Pierce – where Trump won just over half of the vote. But as you can infer, even the least favorable location for a trial in South Florida would place Trump in a jury of peers which were at a minimum 7-times more likely to have voted for him for president compared to a D.C. jury. None of this is to say that a juror who previously supported Trump wouldn’t potentially decide to convict him of crimes if the evidence in their mind supported it – however one might imagine for those who already didn’t and don’t support him the “reasonable doubt” consideration is more likely to lead into different direction. And that’s what this gets down to.
A jury of 12 jurors in a location where 95 out of every 100 voters is already against Trump might well be one that’s completely opposed to him politically. A jury of 12 jurors where in even the least favorable jurisdiction – four are likely to have at least previously supported him, presents an entirely different calculous when the defense only needs one juror to stave off convictions. As for why the prosecutor would bring the case here given that he’d naturally want the best chance of winning his case? It’s almost certainly due to another pending case.
In what may be the most important pending Supreme Court case few people have even talked about is a challenge to the legal venue in which federal cases are brought. While classified documents, which is the subject of the 37-counts, is federal property and thus could theoretically fall under federal jurisdiction in Washington D.C., none of the alleged crimes committed with them were. The case currently pending before the Supreme Court is challenging this very thing. The selective interpretation of where a case should be tried. If the case, Smith v. United States, is found in favor of the “Smith” who brought the case – it could have the potential to have led to an automatic dismissal of the Trump charges had they been brought in Washington D.C. The legal theory as it would apply to Trump is this. A case is to be tried in the location where the alleged crime was committed unless it’s determined a fair trial can’t be had in that location. One’s to be judged by a jury of peers. One has presumed innocence under the law. Donald Trump is a full-time Palm Beach County resident, and the alleged crimes were said to have been committed at Mar-a-Lago. We have federal courts in South Florida for the very purpose of handling federal charges and federal cases.
The prosecutor in this case, Jack Smith said the charges being filed in the Southern District of Florida speak to the strength of the evidence of the case. He may well have a strong case with compelling evidence. That’s something I don’t know. But what I do know is that he’s most likely full of it as to why he’s trying the case down here.