To the Editor:
Monday is a historic day, as a former United States president goes on trial on charges of falsifying business documents to cover up hush money payments. This is the first time a former president has been tried in criminal court.
But more than the historical significance of the trial, this is a test of our democracy and the rule of law. What’s at stake here is not just whether or not the disgraced former president is guilty, but whether he is above the law.
There is clear and compelling evidence showing that Donald Trump committed the crimes he is charged with, but the question is will a jury of his peers agree to hold him accountable for those crimes.
Should the jury reach the correct verdict, the “Teflon Don” could face prison time. An orange jumpsuit is just what this writer hopes to see.
Henry A. Lowenstein
New York
To the Editor:
There is a danger facing the prosecutors in the current New York criminal trial against Donald Trump that reflects a similar danger that existed for the prosecutors who failed to successfully prove the murder case against O.J. Simpson 30 years ago. That danger is the prejudice that some jurors may have about factors having nothing to do with the evidence presented in the case.
In the Simpson case the distrust of the Los Angeles Police Department seemed to play a significant role in explaining the jurors’ decision in a case that seemed to offer overwhelming evidence warranting a guilty verdict. Similarly in the Trump case, the prospect of a single juror who has a strong political bias in favor of Mr. Trump raises the possibility of a hung jury in spite of what seems likely to be a solid case that will presented against him.
That is why trial lawyers, even when presenting very strong cases, agree with Yogi Berra: “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
Larry Dubin
Chagrin Falls, Ohio
The writer is a lawyer and co-author of “Trial Practice, Second Edition.”
To the Editor:
Re “Trump Says He Intends to Testify in His Manhattan Criminal Case” (nytimes.com, April 12):
Donald Trump’s behavior did not help him in the civil fraud trial earlier this year and will not help him in this one. His contempt for the proceedings, his hostility toward witnesses and treating the trial as a campaign event will not work in his favor.
Juries take their role seriously and do not respond well to outbursts by defendants. Unfortunately, his lawyers have very little control over what he will do in the court, which raises the question as to why they would represent a self-destructive client.
Mr. Trump may be able to ignore reality outside the courtroom and lie to his heart’s content, but there are rules that he will have to follow in court. He would be his own worst witness, and if he testifies, his unruly conduct will seal his conviction.
George Magakis Jr.
Norristown, Pa.
To the Editor:
Believing that he can personally convince the jury of his innocence in his New York hush money trial, Donald Trump says he will testify. He would do well to remember Michael Bloomberg’s assessment of him: “I’m a New Yorker, and I know a con when I see one.”
Judith Campbell Schadt
Pittsburgh
J.D. Vance and the Debate Over Aid to Ukraine
To the Editor:
Re “The Math on Ukraine Doesn’t Add Up,” by J.D. Vance (Opinion guest essay, April 13):
If Churchill in 1940 had analyzed Britain’s odds the way Senator Vance is viewing Ukraine’s odds today, we’d all be living in a different world. But Churchill had those essential qualities Mr. Vance and many Republicans lack: vision, courage and a deep moral compass to see beyond mere economics to human dignity and simple right and wrong.
John Beckwith
Eugene, Ore.
To the Editor:
Whatever you think about J.D. Vance’s politics, and I think he’s wrong on most issues, his essay bears consideration.
Assuming that he has his data essentially correct, and I presume he does, as much as I support the administration’s and our European allies’ position in support of Ukraine in its desperate efforts to thwart Russia’s aggression, I’m now leaning very heavily in his direction.
The conflict appears increasingly unwinnable, and we need to be pushing for a cease-fire and a diplomatic solution.
Ross Bailey
Summerville, S.C.
To the Editor:
One only need look at the American Revolutionary War and the Vietnam War to punch holes in J.D. Vance’s mathematical calculations. In each war, the superior combatant was ingloriously defeated by the will of the people and the aid of outsiders.
Paul Dufour
North Haven, Conn.
Originalism and the Subordination of Women
To the Editor:
Re “The Fidelity of ‘Originalist’ Justices Is About to Be Tested,” by Nelson Lund (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, April 9), about two gun cases before the Supreme Court:
Mr. Lund’s theory of originalism threatens to reinvigorate the historical subordination of women.
At the time the Constitution was adopted, women were legally subjugated to men. Federal and state governments in the United States not only ignored domestic violence, but their laws often also affirmatively protected husbands who abused their spouses.
The stubborn adherence to the concerns of elected legislators in the 1700s is particularly troubling given that women had no right to vote until ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920.
It would be a radical mistake to allow these historical wrongs to defeat efforts today to protect women and other survivors of domestic abuse. The Supreme Court should affirm that the government can enact laws aimed at preventing intimate partner violence, consistent with the Second Amendment.
Ria Tabacco Mar
New York
The writer is the director of the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Thinking Rationally
To the Editor:
Re “NASA Could Use Some Philosophers,” by Joseph O. Chapa (Opinion guest essay, April 7):
I’m a professional engineer who has long been a proponent of incorporating philosophy into STEM. Everyone would benefit if scientists and engineers were trained to think more critically — to think more “philosophically” — about the social and environmental impacts of their work. This is particularly important as new technologies, like artificial intelligence, become more powerful and dangerous.
However, the opposite is also true: Everyone would benefit if students in the humanities and social sciences were trained to think more scientifically and rationally. Being exposed to a bit more science, technology, engineering, math — or even a technical trade — could help protect them from being indoctrinated by theories that are divorced from reality and that become fuel for many of the “culture wars” being fought today.
This is no small task. Everyone can’t do everything. But making a little effort to avoid staying in one’s own echo chamber — no matter the field — would go a long way.
Mark Bessoudo
London