Here’s what legal analysts got right about Trump’s court cases

President-elect Donald Trump faced four criminal cases during the 2024 election, but his risk of imprisonment has vanished after securing the presidency, confirming predictions from several legal experts.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s two federal cases against Trump are no longer moving forward, and the president-elect’s two state cases are likely to be dismissed as well. Legal experts on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News all accurately analyzed certain aspects of the cases that ultimately worked in Trump’s favor.

A Manhattan jury in May convicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records, but the president-elect has yet to face sentencing, despite it initially being scheduled for July 11. The Supreme Court’s July 1 presidential immunity ruling prompted months of delays.

Judge Juan Merchan, who presides over the case, initially rescheduled the sentencing for Sept. 18. CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig in late August asserted the Sept. 18 date was “very much in question as to whether we actually will see a sentence.”

Trump had requested earlier in August to postpone the sentencing date past the November election. Merchan pushed it to Nov. 26 “if necessary,” according to a Sept. 6 order.

The judge then indefinitely delayed Trump’s sentencing after his election victory, setting a Dec. 2 deadline for the defense to file its motion to dismiss the case and directing prosecutors to submit their response by Dec. 9.

Trump also faced four felony counts from Smith pertaining to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election, but Honig said there was no possibility a trial would occur before the 2024 election shortly after the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling.

“This case will not go before the election. It will not be tried before the election, and here’s why. Supreme Court has just said there is such thing as criminal immunity,” Honig said. “The test, as we anticipated, essentially, official acts versus unofficial acts. We’re sending it back to the district court. And this is an important detail. The court says several times, whatever the district court finds can be appealed before trial.”

“Jack Smith had made an argument of well, maybe the district judge, the trial judge can work it out and send it to the jury. And then the jury can separate official from unofficial acts,” he continued. “Several times in this opinion, the Supreme Court, the majority, says explicitly: whatever the judge decides about what’s official or unofficial, what’s immune or not immune, that can be appealed back up. 0% chance that happens before November.”

WATCH:

‘0% Chance’: CNN’s Elie Honig Torpedoes Dems’ Hopes Trump Trial Will Occur Before Election pic.twitter.com/aHpC3zhCSl

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) July 1, 2024

Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, rejected Trump’s effort to dismiss it in December and originally scheduled a trial for March. The case never came to trial and Chutkan granted Smith’s request on Monday to toss the case, with the special counsel citing Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines that state the case must be dropped before Trump’s inauguration.

Moreover, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ election interference case against Trump is anticipated to collapse as she still faces disqualification while a state appeals court considers defendants’ arguments. Willis allegedly improperly benefited financially from appointing special prosecutor Nathan Wade to the case, with their relationship derailing the case in January.

MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos in February criticized Willis’ performance during her testimony at a hearing on whether she should be disqualified from her case. He said although her testimony aligned with Wade’s, that did not make her “credible.”

“Do I think that Fani Willis was a good witness? No, not by any metric by which you measure witnesses who testify in court,” Cevallos asserted.

“I’m not saying there’s any evidence of criminality here, obviously, but is it credible just because Fani Willis and Nathan Wade have their stories straight? Is it credible that after these two in a romantic relationship went on trips to Aruba, that the district attorney pulled out an envelope of sweaty cash and peeled off thousands of dollars and handed it to him?” he asked. “Is that credible? Well, I ask you, any of you have been on trips with your romantic paramours, did you do that after you got back from the trip? Peel off a wad of cash and repay them for it? I have yet to find someone who has done that.”

Judge Scott McAfee declined to outright disqualify Willis in March, instead offering prosecutors the choice to have Wade withdraw or have the district attorney and her entire office step aside. Wade subsequently resigned from the case.

Judge Aileen Cannon in July dismissed Smith’s classified documents case against Trump in Florida after finding the special counsel had been unconstitutionally appointed. Smith on Monday moved to dismiss his appeal of the ruling as it pertains to Trump following his election victory.

George Washington University law professor and Fox News Media contributor Jonathan Turley accurately predicted that Smith would appeal the case and that the process would not be resolved by the November election.

“People are attacking Judge Cannon viciously, often citing the fact that she was a Trump appointee, ignoring the fact that Trump appointees have regularly ruled against the former president,” Turley said. “Those attacks are probably going to increase. But for now, this is a great day … This is the one they were most worried about.”

This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].