Former President Donald Trump was convicted in a jury trial of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. There are 57 felony counts that remain pending trial. These figures sensationalize the legal predicament the former president faces, but the number of felony counts is less significant than the fact that they existed in the first place.
For someone who has held the nation’s highest office and served as commander in chief, the only acceptable number should be zero.
Regardless of this or any future rulings, those in positions of power and authority should demonstrate standards of conduct and ethics that would ensure they would never behave in a way that would invite such criticism. If such violations have occurred, expressions of remorse and steps to redress would be appropriate, but this does not appear to be happening. This is a sad time for our country.
The jury found that the evidence was sufficient to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. Note that the court’s verdict is not “guilty” or “not guilty,” but “guilty” or “not guilty” of the crime charged. If there is any “reasonable doubt,” the jury is obligated to verdict “not guilty.” In this case, there was no such doubt.
Of course, the decision will likely be appealed and reviewed in a new light. It is a right that should be exercised.
No one is above the law, including elected officials. But our legal system is subject to two types of risk of error: an innocent person being found guilty, or a guilty person being found not guilty. The former is considered unacceptable, and reducing that risk necessarily increases the risk of the latter.
Despite all these precautions, innocent people do get convicted, but the rate is very low.
Avoiding such errors is the basis of the English jurist William Blackstone’s ratio, which states that it is preferable for 10 guilty people to be set free than for one innocent person to be imprisoned.
That’s why a court of law starts with a presumption of “innocent.” In the world of statistical inference, this means the “null hypothesis,” or the conjecture being tested and evaluated, is “innocent.” Rejecting this null hypothesis in favor of the alternative hypothesis, or “guilty,” is often a high bar to clear, and therefore must be met “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
This type of statistical inference is used anywhere that assumptions need to be evaluated and resolved. For example, clinical trials are widely used in medicine to evaluate whether a new treatment, intervention, or drug offers a clinical advantage over the existing standard of care. Small improvements may be identified during evaluation, but may not be enough to merit approval.
A similar concept applies at airport security checkpoints: some travelers are subject to secondary screening if an alarm sounds at the primary screening equipment, but most of these alarms are resolved, ensuring that most dangerous items brought through the checkpoint are not brought into the sterile areas of the airport.
The same is true for court decisions: if all jurors do not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard, the decision can be deadlocked.
It is unfortunate that a former commander in chief has been put in this situation. Given all the evidence provided, the legal system has worked well and a conviction has been obtained despite the very high hurdles that had to be cleared.
What is even more disturbing is that some politicians have commented on the ruling, but with politics rather than principles. This is the case with Republican lawmakers who confuse legal process with legal rulings. Just because the outcome of the trial is undesirable does not mean the process was flawed. This reeks of people claiming that the 2020 election was stolen, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.
The lone exception to this furore was former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, a Republican running for the Maryland Senate seat, who commented that the court’s decision “must be respected,” a comment that any reasonable person with knowledge of our legal system would make.
But the Washington environment seems to be short on sensible people, judging by their words. Republican elected officials and powerful figures denounced Hogan’s comments.That includes the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, who also happens to be Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law (a clear conflict of interest in this case.) If your opinions are driven by politics and not principle, then you have to start questioning the politics.
Elected officials are elected to serve the people and run the business of the nation, and when they begin to prioritize party interests over the well-being of the nation, the results are ugly at best and destabilizing at worst.
Based on the court’s ruling last week, the former president has been deemed a convicted felon by the court. Every trial tests a hypothesis based on all available information. Both the prosecution and defense are given an opportunity to present their case. The judge or jury evaluates all the evidence and renders a verdict. This is the basis of our legal system. If our legal system could not be trusted, our country would have far worse problems than a former president being convicted of such a crime.
Dr. Sheldon H. Jacobson is a Professor of Computer Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He applies his expertise in data-driven, risk-based decision-making to evaluate and inform public policy.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
