Did President Trump Escape Conviction Due to a “Legal Technicality”?

 

Leave aside the thought that conviction of Donald Trump by 67 U.S. Senators in his impeachment was a political impossibility.  As a legal matter, did the case against him fail due to a legal technicality?

Democrats and their media supporters, in the wake of the verdict, lambasted the 43 GOP votes for acquittal as cowards relying on a “technicality”.

As commonly used by those opposed to a verdict of a judge or jury, the expression is meant to convey that a court ruling thwarted justice.

Yet, as any lawyer should know, and Congressional Democratic ranks are full of them, there are legal technicalities… and there are technicalities.

In a criminal context, justice, in its most basic form, means that right occurs when the guilty receive what is deserved and the innocent are freed.

But justice is a system which should operate efficiently and fairly.  Thus, law and court rules require, for instance, that allegations of criminal conduct be filed in a timely manner.  If not, what is termed a statute of limitations can bar prosecution (except, usually for murder).  The defendant has the right to a “speedy trial”.  Is that justice?  The accused does not face it.  Is it fair?  Perhaps.  Is that a technicality?  In the sense that justice was not done either way?  Of course.  But does that render the disposition illegitimate?  No.

The pursuit of justice occurs within a system which sets both means and ends.  Yes, justice is the appropriate end, but how is it reached?  If torture of a suspect would produce a truthful confession would not justice result?  But is there more than justice to be considered?

So how about another “technicality” relevant to the impeachment of Donald Trump?

Jurisdiction.  Courts have authority to handle matters within their purview.  Thus a Maryland court has authority (jurisdiction) to resolve cases in that state but not Virginia, for instance.  Or a court whose authority is limited to handling criminal misdemeanors is barred from hearing felony cases.  It lacks jurisdiction to do so.  More” technicalities” to be sure but they are integral to your system of justice.  And they certainly make sense.

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office…” states the U.S. Constitution.

Before determining guilt or innocence, however, jurisdiction must be established.  Does removal mean the subject must be in office when the judgment is made?  A technicality?  No doubt. 

Language can be subject to varying interpretations (as every lawyer also knows), but to dismiss jurisdiction as a technicality which should be ignored  (in the interest of “justice”) is disingenuous – no, disgraceful!