Tom Robinson’s conviction for rape in Depression era Alabama, a verdict driven by blind prejudice despite an absence of incriminating proof, is the story of To Kill a Mockingbird. Whether rooted in racial hate or blind political animus, prejudice in the Court strips away the necessary element of a fair trial, mocking even the most remote elements of justice. While they are of course opposites in every way, in a Manhattan courthouse on Tuesday, May 9, Tom Robinson found a kindred soul in the 45th President of the United States, both wrongly condemned by a biased and corrupt system.
E. Jean Carrol, liberal activist from New York City, claimed in 2019 that she had been raped – raped, not sexually assaulted – by Donald Trump in a dressing room of a large Manhattan department store. She alleged - as they say on CNN with regards anything Trump “without proof“ - that it occurred in 1998 or maybe 1999 - date unknown, some 20 plus years prior. In December of 2022, a law was passed in New York state – the “let’s sue Trump law” - in which civil suits were allowed, no matter how old, the statute of limitations notwithstanding. Even though Carroll screamed from the witness stand that Trump raped her, the jury did not believe her. Yet, money was awarded.
Justice is supposed to be blind. In this case, it was the blind hatred of the defendant that prevailed. This makes the decision certainly not the siren call for justice to all so injured, but an outlier, winnable only with the stacked deck.
Worst of all, the rules of evidence were bent to the point of fracture. Unlike Ms. Carroll, no other woman would be allowed to make a charge of violent sexual attack without a definite time and date. This deprived the defendant of the ironclad shield of being verifiably out of town on date the alleged attack. Furthermore, the Court permitted the repeated introduction before the jury of inflammatory statements by Trump of his obnoxious opinions about women, statements that took place decades AFTER the nebulous incident alleged and should therefore have no bearing on the issues before the jury. But when the defendant is Donald Trump, a blind rage takes over. Rules designed to protect us all are abandoned in the pursuit of revenge against Trump.
One of the nation’s premier legal minds, Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus from the Harvard Law school, commenting on the evidentiary mistakes that deprived the defendant of a fair trial called the appeal in this case a “slam dunk, “ but for the bias against Trump. The verdict was $2 million for the non-rape, $2.7 million for defamation in denying that he did it, and a paltry $300,000 in punitive damages.
Such clearly inconsistent, irrational, and improper verdicts could not withstand fair appellate review, but when it comes to Trump, fair is rare. The cliche of “no one is above the law,” is obviously a joke. The Bidens are above the law; the Clintons are above the law, as are the Kennedys and the Obamas, Democrats generally.
But no one is BELOW the law. In America, all are entitled to basic, fundamental equity of treatment, no matter how obnoxious. Whether a Black man in Alabama or a white (orange) man in New York, the law must be as Atticus Finch, the hero of To Kill a Mockingbird says, “the Great Leveler.” If the Law fails, we fail as a society.
Let us be clear, I do not love Donald Trump, not in the least. While I did vote for him for President twice, and if left no reasonable alternative, would a third time, he is a vile and, in many ways, despicable human being. While his policies were extremely good for the country, and his term looks especially good in comparison to the current occupant, his enormous ego, lack of personal discipline and failure to understand how to act Presidential make it best that someone else replace Joe Biden.
But I do love the law, having spent almost 50 years in its service. I know that it is the ones outside the realm of decency that deserve the most protection, no matter how painful. Trump must be given the birthright protection afforded all Americans of a fair trial, in all his charges. As Clint Eastwood says, “Deservin’s got nothing to do with it.”
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere.” Having Donald Trump embracing the quote from Dr. King rankles some, I am sure, but it is the point. He is entitled to have the Court of Appeals set aside the verdict, and ultimately the matter dismissed. While such would benefit Trump, it serves us all. We must stand and be counted in support for the bedrock of American justice. Be not afraid.