William Shipley: The Constitutional reason why Trump’s traffic junction 6. January were justified

In the 1986 comedy-triller’s “Legal Eagles”, there is a scene that includes opening statements in the case of a high murder, and Robert Redford played a former prosecutor who was a defender. After the plaintiff’s introductory statement, Redford employs the “tactics” of the jurispet tactics that, after listening to the prosecutor, even convinced that his client was guilty.

“Look, let’s save a lot of time. Let’s be honest. There are better things we could do. Who thinks Chelsea Deardon is guilty?” Redford’s character, Tom Logan, asks the jurors, even raising his own hand.

Trump pardones almost all of Jan. 6 accused on the day of inauguration

Some jurors raise their hands while others look uncertain what to do. One then says to Logan, “Shouldn’t we have a trial first?” To which Logan replies, “Oh, of course. We have a trial first and then we will condemn it.”

This scene has returned to me repeatedly because I was in the end dozens of people – somewhere near 90 – charged with crimes associated with events on US Capitol 6 January 2021. Now, after President Donald Trump Wide Pardon of All Persons Accused and/or Convicted on 6 January, Ninja and crying rings from its critics The idea that so obviously the wrong people have avoided the legal consequences of their criminal behavior.

However, the criminal law system is only partly related to the evidence of the guilt that the prosecution offered by the Prosecutor’s Office has offered against the defendant. The criminal judiciary system also refers to the proceedings – the “procedure” – which is guaranteed by the Constitution before the government can deprive any person of their freedom in prison.

The whole country had access to thousands of hours of video evidence of the events of January 6th. But the public is largely uninformed in terms of a “process” that was provided when people were returned to Washington to the trial. This simply assumes the public – commentators both on the left and right criticizing of the pardon – that on January 6, the defendants received the proceedings that usually provided the accused in federal courts across the country.

But this is not true, and the disadvantages in the “process” – regardless of the views that the judges in Washington expressed on the subject – are the strongest reasons that justify the wide shift of Trump’s pardons. If he is not provided with the right of the defendant’s process, then there is a suspicious conviction that could result. This is no different from the basics for suppressing evidence when the rights of the defendant of the fourth Amendment are violated by an illegal search – the procedure would break the Constitution.

Many more complex legal issues include decisions on payment, change of place, the use of statutes considered applicable to the events of the day and more. Research of all of them would require a book. But here’s an example of the fact that the Biden Ministry of Justice changed his long -standing practice to gain influence over the accused on January 6th in his efforts to secure the overly Harsh outcomes they wanted.

Click here for more Fox News opinions

In accordance with the Rule 20. Federal rules of criminal proceedings, the defendant in the federal case who wants to admit guilt may request that the case be sent to the federal district where the defendant lives, if that district is different from the district where the defendant is charged. For example, on January 6 from Dallas, who wanted to admit guilt, he has theoretical possibility to do so in the northern district of Texas and convicted in the same court for his crime.

The only prerequisite for this in accordance with the Rule 20 is that US lawyers are in every district – where the billing is brought and where the defendant is staying – they both agree that the case has been resolved this way. In my 21 years as a federal prosecutor, cases being processed as a “rule of 20 transfers” were common and practice was routine.

Click here to get the Fox News app

But Biden’s implement rejected all such requests. Hundreds of January 6, the accused acknowledged guilt, but Biden’s impression insisted that each case must condemn one of the 19 federal judges in Columbia County. If you were never in the yard of E. Barrett Prettyman of the United States, it sits at the same intersection of Pennsylvania and third streets as well as the northwestern corner of the capitol building. Some Washington judges could see a protest on January 6th and riots from the windows of their offices. These were judges for which the Ministry of Justice Biden insisted that they had the final word of every sentence of the defendant on January 6th, which was intentional.

I represented the accused 42 months on January 6th. My services included 12 trials, the last of which ended on January 13, just one week before the inauguration of President Trump. I also represented the defendant in his sentence on January 17, the last working day before Trump took his duty. Through this period, I have seen many other ways in which their rights to the procedure have been routinely and systematically violated, and I hope that in the future I will divide more examples in this space. Americans who believe in the correct procedure will be shocked, and I believe they will understand that the decision of President Trump is justified.