Donald Trump's prison sentence would create constitutional chaos, experts say

Jailing Donald Trump would create a massive constitutional crisis, legal experts say.

Trump is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11 after being found guilty on all counts in his secret trial in New York.

Greg Germain, an attorney and law professor at Syracuse University in New York, said News week that putting Trump in jail would lead to numerous legal challenges.

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, was tried in New York on 34 counts of falsifying business records for secret payments made to adult film actor Stormy Daniels.

On May 30, a jury found him guilty of all 34 counts.

News week asked Trump's lawyer for comment via email Monday.

Germain said Trump could avoid prison because of the enormous legal complexities associated with his imprisonment.

“I don't think Trump will be sentenced to prison, because that would create a constitutional crisis and a series of habeas corpus appeals and challenges, as well as a mess in the justice system that would attempt to deal with the prisoner Trump “, did he declare.

Habeas corpus cases are legal challenges to a person's detention.

“The smart thing would be to give him probation or suspend his sentence pending appeal. A decision by Judge Marchan to impose a prison sentence would appear biased,” Germain said.

Michael Dimino, a law professor at Widener University in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, also said jailing Trump would create a constitutional crisis.

“Imprisonment is extremely unlikely, but it would cause a constitutional crisis. Ironically, the crisis is more difficult to resolve regarding the campaign than regarding the post-election imprisonment if Mr. Trump were elected. » Dimino said News week.

“Although there is no direct precedent [for] “It is clear that states cannot interfere with federal authority, including the president's ability to carry out his duties,” he said.

“The president represents the entire nation, and one state cannot control the other 49. The Colorado ballot access case, which the Supreme Court recently decided…unanimously applied this principle to prevent Colorado from keeping Trump off the ballot,” Dimino said.

“Accordingly, it would be unconstitutional not only for a state to imprison a president, but also for a state to impose such restrictions, for example on travel, that would substantially prevent him from carrying out his job as president.”

“The Constitution grants no special status to presidential candidates and they obviously have no constitutional responsibility.”

“On the other hand, if a state were to manage to handicap a candidate by preventing them from campaigning, this could constitute the most serious interference in the election, undermining the legitimacy of the results.”

“Once again, the Colorado case is potentially instructive, even though it deals with disqualification from office rather than campaigning. If we are truly concerned about a state swinging a national election, l “Imprisonment of a major party candidate presents these risks in spades,” Dimino said. .