The Triumph of Legal Formalism: Analyzing the Trump Hush Money Trial Verdict
The recent unanimous conviction of Donald Trump in his hush money trial has sparked a debate between legal formalism and legal realism. The author, an Emeritus Professor of Law, argues that the surprising verdict challenges the validity of legal formalism and suggests that legal realism may better explain the outcome.
The probability model predicted a hung jury based on the partisan distribution of the jurors, reflecting the broader community. However, the author questions how there was not a single pro-Trump juror among the twelve who convicted Trump on all thirty-four counts. Legal formalism, which values evidence over biases, suggests that the jurors based their decision solely on the evidence presented in the trial.
On the other hand, legal realism, which doubts the assumptions of legal formalism, argues that bias prevails over evidence. Trump’s criticism of the trial was anchored in legal realism, highlighting the political biases of the prosecutor and the judge. Legal realists may struggle to explain how twelve jurors agreed on Trump’s conviction, as they would argue that the jurors were anti-Trump and simply confirmed their animus against him.
In conclusion, the author presents a thought-provoking analysis of the Trump trial, questioning whether legal formalism or legal realism better explains the surprising verdict. The debate between these two legal theories adds an intriguing layer to the already complex case.