I just completed my 50th year as an attorney, many of my early years spent as a trial attorney. Donald Trump’s goal appears to have been to try his New York criminal case in the press (defending himself and attacking witnesses) and avoid taking the witness stand where he would be cross-examined. If he was innocent, he should have testified. Jurors are instructed not to consider a defendant’s decision not to testify as evidence of guilt, but the reality is often different. On the other hand, with a client who has considerable problems telling the truth and who is often combative, Trump’s attorneys probably made the right decision.
His comments about the judge, the prosecutors and the legal system were mostly false and showed a compete disrespect for our legal system. Any client I have represented would receive active time for his attitude and attempts to undermine our legal system. This should be no different here.
— Jerry Davenport, McHenry
Judge has destroyed our faith
Judge Juan Merchan, who presided over Donald Trump’s New York trial, has done more to destroy faith in the American justice system than all of the corrupt Chicago judges who have gone to prison combined.
— James E. McNally, Chicago
Dark day in American history
Donald Trump being found guilty was the darkest day in American history. President Joe Biden’s administration has just destroyed democracy.
The trial was the definition of a kangaroo court. The case was decided before the trial even started.
If you don’t think this sham was politically motivated, you’re blind, or you drink the left-wing Kool-Aid.
— Ronald Kruzel, Chicago
Nastiness of American politics
I recently heard someone say that “you could throw a dart from Mars and hit some random person on the Earth and pick a better candidate for president than the two who are running again November.” I must admit that I have had to go into the voting booth a few times and hold my nose while voting for our next president. I have become so sick of the hubris, the name-calling, the vitriol and the incivility displayed by our political leaders.
The young lady who cuts my hair told me that she has stopped listening to the news and doesn’t vote. Donald Trump’s conviction probably won’t change a lot of minds, but many have abdicated their responsibility to pick our leaders because they can no longer stomach the propaganda, the hateful rhetoric and the nastiness of American politics.
— Charles Michael Sitero, Ormond Beach, Florida
Demand that Trump withdraw
In 1974, congressional Republicans told a criminal president to resign or be impeached to preserve the rule of law. In 2024, congressional Republicans went to a New York courthouse, where former President Donald Trump was later convicted of 34 felonies, to support him as their 2024 nominee.
In its May 31 editorial (“Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts made for a sad, strange day for America”), the Tribune Editorial Board observes that the conviction was a “strange and sad day for America, irrespective of party affiliation.” At a time when our institutions are being attacked, the board needs to reassert the role of the free press in protecting democracy and the rule of law. (It’s as important as the U.S. military.)
The board needs to demand that Trump step down as the presumptive Republican nominee.
— John Eschbach, Palatine
Held to a higher standard
As a retired police lieutenant of 28 years, I dealt with hundreds of criminal cases in my career, and I ran internal affairs during part of that time. One of the main criticisms people seem to parrot in the case of Donald Trump’s New York trial is that “if it was someone else, this case would not have been brought.”
I agree — but they, and most of the media, are missing the point.
Trump is running for the highest office in the land. If a low-level public servant can be investigated, maybe arrested and certainly fired for those offenses, why shouldn’t he? People who serve in public office should be held to a higher standard as the public relies on us and needs to trust in us.
— Jeff Adam, Huntley
Consequences of a crime
It’s so unusual for Donald Trump to tell the truth, but he just did the other day. After the verdict, he said, “If they can do this to me, they can do it to anyone.” That’s true. If you commit a crime, you, too, can be arrested and put on trial.
— Joyce Porter, Oak Park
12 jurors did their civic duty
Donald Trump said that his trial was “rigged” and “unfair.” Since his attorneys were involved in the jury selection, his statements appear to discredit the 12 citizens who were doing their civic duty.
How curious that the politicians who call the trial a “sham” and “election interference” never mention the jurors. No doubt that they know better than to imply that these 12 individuals were all “rigged.”
— Jeanine Budach, Mesa, Arizona
Word choice was shameful
I have been a subscriber to the Tribune for more than 30 years. I took offense to the headline on May 31 that read “Trump delivers rambling response to guilty verdict, falsely blasting ‘rigged trial,’ slamming Cohen.’”
Why did the Tribune feel the need to use the word “falsely”? One word can change so many opinions.
Come on, Tribune. Just report and don’t pick a side. Isn’t that what good journalism used to be like?
— Dan Eichelkraut, Mokena, Illinois
Give juries benefit of the doubt
Many years ago, I was the foreman for a jury in an attempted murder case that appeared to be leading to an obvious conviction. After sitting through the testimony and a two-day deliberation, during which we examined the law and the circumstances, we voted not guilty.
If I had heard about this case, I might have thought that the jury was crazy or stupid or had an agenda. And yet, because I sat through each day, examined the law, and listened carefully to the trial and my peers, I voted not guilty. For us, it was the right thing to do, even though we felt heartsick for the victim and his family.
I don’t always agree with the outcome of trials. But whether it’s the trial of a former president or an average person, I try to stop and remember that I wasn’t there to witness the trial and be part of the deliberation.
In my experience, most people don’t bring their political agenda to the jury room. And if they do, it eventually takes second place to the responsibility that they have been given.
Unless we sat through every minute of Donald Trump’s criminal trial or that of any other, I think we should give juries the benefit of the doubt. Trust the jury.
— Leonard Harsy, Chicago
I won’t second-guess the jury
The conviction of Donald Trump on 34 criminal charges by a Manhattan jury has caused an uproar. Some people are proclaiming that justice was finally done, while others say that Trump’s trial was an utter travesty. I won’t second-guess the jury. I wasn’t there for the trial, and I don’t know any of the jurors. I can speak only about my own experience as a juror.
I have served on two juries. I was the foreman of the jury for both trials. I can say that all the members of the two juries were serious about performing their civic duty. We all knew that we held the fate of other people in our hands, and we acted accordingly. I served with jurors who tried their best to be fair and impartial. Even after many years, I am still impressed with the work we did.
I can honestly say that nothing in my life has made me prouder to be an American than the time I spent serving with other citizens on those two juries. It gave me faith in our judicial system and the rule of law.
— Francis Pauc, Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
