In a recent submission to the Fulton County Superior Court addressed to presiding Judge Scott McAfee, legal representatives of Donald Trump contended that the former president was not sufficiently warned that his actions could be deemed criminal. The argument posited that the United States has a longstanding tradition of vigorous political advocacy concerning widespread allegations of fraud and irregularities in numerous presidential elections throughout its history. Consequently, Trump’s legal team asserted that he lacked fair notice that his advocacy in the context of the 2020 Presidential Election could be subject to criminalization.
Citing legal precedent, the filing emphasized the importance of individuals, including the President, being entitled to clear guidance on where the boundary lies between permissible activity and potentially criminal conduct. Quoting the United States v. Lanier case, the argument underscored that no individual should be held criminally responsible for actions that they could not reasonably understand to be prohibited.
The filing invoked the principle of due process, contending that courts should refrain from applying a novel interpretation of a criminal statute to conduct not clearly disclosed by the statute or prior judicial decisions to be within its scope. Referring to Boddie v. Connecticut, it emphasized that a statute or rule may be deemed constitutionally invalid as applied if it deprives an individual of a protected right, even if its general validity as a legitimate exercise of state power is not in question.
Furthermore, the filing addressed each count in the indictment against Trump, outlining refutations for the charges he faces, such as Violation of the Georgia RICO Act, Solicitation of Violation of Oath by Public Officer, Conspiracy to Commit Impersonating a Public Officer, Conspiracy to Commit Forgery in the First Degree, Conspiracy to Commit False Statements and Writings, Conspiracy to Commit Filing False Documents, and others. The submission provided the maximum penalties associated with each count.
Ironically, the legal argument cited the 14th Amendment, the same constitutional provision being employed to exclude Trump from state ballots due to his alleged involvement in insurrectionary activities.
Our country has a longstanding tradition of forceful political advocacy regarding widespread allegations of fraud and irregularities in a long list of Presidential elections throughout our history, therefore, President Trump lacked fair notice that his advocacy in the instance of the 2020 Presidential Election could be criminalized. President Trump, like all citizens, is entitled to have fair warning as to where the line is drawn which separates permissible activity from that which is allegedly criminal. See United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 265 (1997) (“‘No man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.”).
“Due process bars courts from applying a novel construction of a criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope…” Id. at 266 (internal citations omitted).
“[A] statute or a rule may be held constitutionally invalid as applied when it operates to deprive an individual of a protected right although its general validity as a measure enacted in the legitimate exercise of state power is beyond question.” Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971).
The filing goes on to offer refutations of each of the counts in the indictment.
The indictment enumerates the charges against Trump, which are listed below along with the maximum penalty for each:
- Count 1: Violation Of The Georgia Rico Act – 20 Years
- Count 5: Solicitation Of Violation Of Oath By Public Officer – 3 years
- Count 9: Conspiracy To Commit Impersonating A Public Officer – 2.5 years
- Count 11: Conspiracy To Commit Forgery In The First Degree – 7.5 years
- Count 13: Conspiracy To Commit False Statements And Writings – 2.5 years
- Count 15: Conspiracy To Commit Filing False Documents – 5 years
- Count 17: Conspiracy To Commit Forgery In The First Degree 2.5 years
- Count 19: Conspiracy To Commit False Statements And Writings 2.5 years
- Count 27: Filing False Documents – 10 years
- Count 28: Solicitation Of A Violation Of Oath By Public Officer – 3 years
- Count 29: False Statements And Writings – 5 years
- Count 38: Solicitation Of Violation Of Oath By Public Officer – 3 years
- Count 39: False Statements And Writings – 5 years
