-4

In New York law, falsifying business records (which Trump was charged with) is only a misdemeanor. However, if the falsification was done with intent to help commit or conceal a crime, then it is elevated to a felony. Famously, the prosecution provided the jurors three candidate crimes, and told them they need not agree which they felt Trump was guilty of, just so long as they all felt there was at least one. These three "other" crimes were:

  1. violation of federal campaign finance limits
  2. violation of state tax laws regarding the reimbursement.
  3. violation of state election laws by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election

My understanding is that in situations where the misdemeanor of falsifying business records is upgraded to a felony, then the defendant is charged with both - the falsification of the records, and the crime it helped.

Note, in order for the misdemeanor to be upgraded to a felony, the prosecution merely needs to prove the defendant intended to commit a crime - not that they did, or it could even be proven that they did. That is not my question. My question is why, in this specific case, did the prosecution not charge any of those three crimes? Since it certainly is the case that Trump did commit them (in the argument of the prosecution), and that the prosecution was not lacking evidence of the crimes.

A bonus to answers that provide legal precedence around the topic.

ineedahero
  • 9
  • 6

3 Answers3

4

Maybe they didn’t happen

The charge that was brought only requires proof that the falsification was done with the intention of concealing other crimes - it is not required to prove that those crimes ever happened. Indeed, a person could alter the records with the plan to conceal another crime that they believe happened and they would be guilty even if the acts they sought to conceal were not actually crimes at all.

Maybe they can’t be proved

Maybe the prosecution believes they happened but have insufficient evidence to prove it. So, you can’t get Capone on racketeering charges, so you get him on tax evasion - the parallels are eerie.

Maybe they believe someone else committed the underlying crime

The alteration doesn’t have to be to conceal your crime, altering records to conceal anyone’s crimes creates the felony.

Dale M
  • 237,717
  • 18
  • 273
  • 546
3

Well #1 is not a state crime so this prosecution couldn’t include it. The statue of limitations could be an issue but I think proving all the elements of either of the either of the #2 and #3 crimes is harder than establishing the intent to commit at least one of the three crimes.

And prosecutorial discretion used to keep the case manageable.

I don’t understand why you think #3 is intertwined with the others.

George White
  • 13,339
  • 2
  • 27
  • 60
-1

As noted in other answers, we cannot read the mind of the prosecutor, so we cannot know the exact reasons the other crimes were not charged. That said, the decision to not charge these crimes is striking, and there are some key factors that stand out as likely influencing the decision:

1. violation of federal campaign finance limits
This is a federal law, not a state law, hence the New York prosecutor could not charge it.

2. violation of state tax laws regarding the reimbursement.
The taxes were actually overpaid, because Trump reimbursed Cohen more than the hush money payment that was given to Stormy Daniels (described in this article). While Bragg argued that New York law does not require financial injury to the state for the act to be criminal, and Judge Merchan accepted that argument, it likely would have been a tough sell to the jury and bad optics to the press.

3. violation of state election laws by unlawfully influencing the 2016 election
In my view, this one is the most speculative. This is what I consider relevant:

The law in question here is SECTION 17-152 and is only a misdemeanor, stated below (emphasis mine):

§ 17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Prosecutors have finite resources and tend to focus on the most critical sections of a case. And since the prosecution's ultimate goal was to convict Trump of a felony, it seems reasonable that they would conserve resources rather than attempt to charge Trump with what would, at best, result in just another misdemeanor.

Other answers allude to an expired statute of limitations. This is complicated by New York pausing the limit during covid, as well as for days when the defendant is out of state (which in Trump's case is significant). It's possible the prosecution wanted to avoid such discussion (note that the limitations for a felony is 5 years, and a misdemeanor is only 2 years). (source here).

Lastly, the original question claims that the prosecution was "not lacking evidence" for all three crimes. This is maybe true for the first two crimes, but Section 17-152 is based on a "conspiracy" to influence the election; while not impossible to prove, it would not have been a slam dunk of a case as the original question insinuates.

ineedahero
  • 9
  • 6