By Patrick F. Cannon

If you’re a Democrat or a left leaning independent, you probably think former President Donald Trump is guilty of all or at least most of the 91 criminal charges he faces. If you’re a Republican, you think the whole thing was dreamed up by vengeful prosecutors, who conveniently all happen to be Democrats. On the other hand, you’re absolutely certain that President Biden and his family have enriched themselves by trading on his positions as senator, vice president and now president.

Of course, both sides could be right, or partially right or just plain wrong. As for myself, I think Trump is likely guilty of most of those 91 charges; but I frankly have no clue about Biden. But after a long life studying politicians and politics, nothing surprises me. The Republican majority in the House of Representatives is determined to prove that Biden accepted bribes and other payments to make things happen or not happen for interested parties. If they can agree on a new Speaker, maybe they will.

In the end, my opinion about Trump’s or Biden’s guilt or innocence is just that – an opinion. And if the Republicans in the House vote to impeach Biden, the chance that he would be found guilty in the Senate are no better than the two times Trump was found not guilty during his two impeachment trials. In a nearly equally divided Senate, finding the two-thirds necessary for conviction is a pipe dream. The only time in recent history it might have been possible was forestalled by Richard Nixon’s resignation.

Anyway, the Senate can’t send you to jail; only a jury of your fellow citizens can do that. And that’s where it gets tricky. Many years ago, I was the foreman of a jury in a murder trial in the Cook County courts. The venue was the famous main courthouse at 26^th & California in Chicago. The trial took the best part of a week, and involved a married couple on trial for murdering a neighbor. It seems a group of African-American residents in the Altgeld Gardens public housing development on Chicago’s far south were gathered in a parking lot having a few drinks.

According to witnesses, the wife was falling-down drunk and one of the partiers was making fun of her, to which she took umbrage, complaining to her husband. He promptly went to his unit, fetched a metal baseball bat, returned, and proceeded to beat the offender to death. The prosecutors were able to convince several of the witnesses to testify to the altercation and the fatal beating.

To their credit, the defense attorneys did their best to impugn and confuse the witnesses, but to little effect. When both sides rested their cases, the judge spent some time lecturing us about the laws involved, and how to weigh the evidence. When we went to the jury room, I was chosen as foreman, I think because I was older and had white hair. We took up the wife’s culpability first, and decided she was so drunk that she wasn’t capable of participating in the actual killing.

Everyone agreed that the husband had done what he was charged with. That should have been that, but no. One of the jurors, a young African-American woman, said she would never vote to convict him because he had actually come to the defense of his wife, which should not only not be condemned, but encouraged in the African-American community. I won’t bore you with all the arguments we used to convince her to change her mind. They didn’t sway her, and the judge finally, on my recommendation, declared a mistrial in his case. The not guilty verdict for the wife stood.

Do you think – with Trump apparently in a dead heat with Biden for the 2024 presidential election – that the courts will be able to find 12 citizens who will agree to impartially look at the evidence and vote accordingly? Maybe. Then again, maybe not. One would think the government has a better chance in Democratic DC than in Republican south Florida, where the judge is a Trump appointee (with a fine name, I might add). Remember, it only takes one holdout to hang a jury, unlike the United Kingdom, where a judge may decide to take a majority verdict. And I keep remembering OJ Simpson, clearly guilty, but acquitted because “if it don’t fit, you must acquit.”

If I were the government, I would at least try to make a deal with Trump. Drop the documents case, and offer a deal on January 6. Plead guilty to those charges, in return for no jail time and an agreement that Trump never again run for Federal office, or even endorse a candidate. Frankly, I don’t think Trump’s ego would permit him to do this, but it’s at least worth a try. The alternative is going to be a long and agonizing nightmare that would further damage our increasingly fragile democracy.

Copyright 2023, Patrick F. Cannon