‘It denotes some of the most evil intentions on the part of those accused’
By Joe Kovacs
President Donald J. Trump delivers remarks in support of the Farmers to Families Food Box distribution program Monday, Aug. 24, 2020, at Flavor First Growers and Packers in Mills River, North Carolina. (Official White House photo by Shealah Craighead)
While former President Donald Trump is now charged with numerous crimes, including violation of the Espionage Act, one of the most respected legal minds in America says prosecutors should not be able to voice one word in court that could prejudice the jury.
“Espionage.”
In a column posted this week by Alan Dershowitz, the professor emeritus at Harvard Law School says the 1917 is actually “misnamed because it covers a great many offenses that don’t involve spying or giving secrets to the enemy. In fact, over the years it has been used extensively against patriotic Americans who have opposed wars and dissented from other government actions.”
“In Trump’s case, he is being accused primarily of unlawful possession of allegedly classified material.
“But because he has been charged under the Espionage Act, many people have been misled into believing the accusations against him have something to do with espionage, spying or even treason.”
Dershowitz says use of the e-word is “extremely prejudicial” to Trump, at least in the the court of public opinion.
“It would be even more prejudicial in a court of law if the jury were to hear that word in connection with his case.”
The famed law professor suggests Trump’s lawyers “immediately move for what’s called a motion in limine prohibiting the use of the word espionage by prosecutors, either inside the courtroom or outside it, but especially in front of the jury.”
“‘Espionage’ has no relevance to the upcoming trial. It associates Trump with some of the worst offenses imaginable.”
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz
He reminds Americans that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed for espionage, and that numerous former government officials have served long terms for the same charge.
“Those defendants actually provided classified and other secret information to our enemies,” he writes. “Trump should not be painted with that invidious brush, based on the evidence in his case.”
Dershowitz says it’s not uncommon for judges to prohibit prosecutors from voicing prejudicial terms in front of juries.
