Maggie Haberman
May 29, 2024, 11:11 a.m. ET
Maggie Haberman Reporting from inside the courthouse
...
...state law is different than federal law, and most of the commentary on television and in op-ed pages stems from an understanding of federal law — not the state laws applicable here.
Jonah Bromwich
May 29, 2024, 11:12 a.m. ET
Jonah Bromwich Reporting from inside the courthouse
This is exactly right. In my experience, lawyers with experience in federal court tend to hold a different — and often far more negative — view of the prosecution’s case than do state practitioners. ...
It's a great point by Haberman, which Bromwich immediately seconds. Federal law is however supreme. There are constitutional, i.e. federal, standards that must be adhered to. A conviction in state court involving a constitutional question eventually makes its way to the federal courts on appeal. The New York statute that is the basis of these charges is obviously not inconsistent with the New York state constitution. But if the New York state statute as applied in this case violates the United States Constitution, then what happens in New York does not stay in New York. This state indictment also specifically invokes federal laws. The jury instructions that Justice Merchan gave may well pass muster with the New York Supreme Court, but if they violate the U.S. Constitution, for example, in not requiring a specific intent on the defendant's part, or in not requiring that the step-up crime be specified, then the federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, will reverse the conviction in a New York minute.
