I haven’t commented on the Trump trial because you can see everything I could say on any Fox or Newsmax program. However, over the past couple of days the term “motion for a directed verdict “ has been thrown around frequently but I haven’t seen anyone explain what it is so I will explain it so you understand what’s being advocated.

In most jurisdictions, at the end of the prosecution’s case the defense must file a motion for a directed verdict in order to preserve their right to appeal a guilty verdict. No motion, no appeal.

So what is a motion for a directed verdict? It is a motion that essentially says if you take the evidence presented by the prosecution and consider it in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it still doesn’t prove that the crime charged was committed and therefore the judge must direct a verdict of not guilty. And in this case, it should be granted because the prosecution hasn’t even specified what crime was supposed to have been committed.

( Tomorrow I will be putting up the Cliff’s Notes version of the rant I have been working on. I realized that to do it the way I wanted it would be essentially be a 30 or 40 page Law Review article and I have had several published but I doubt that any of you would want to spend the time to read it.)