Yale law professor reveals why Trump isn't a convicted felon despite guilty verdict

A professor at Yale Law has claimed Trump is not a convicted felon despite his recent guilty verdict in New York.

Jed Rubenfeld, 65, made the statement this week on his podcast, 'Straight Down the Middle.'

Citing state law, he said the ex-president is not a convicted felon until a judge enters a judgment of guilty at his sentencing. 

The 2024 Republican presumptive nominee is set to be sentenced on July 11, potentially sending him to prison right in time for the Republican National Convention.

In the meantime, Rubenfeld described several 'avenues' Trump's attorneys could take to make that not happen  - like suing in federal court to stop the conviction.

Scroll down for video: 

Jed Rubenfeld, 65, made the argument this week on his podcast, 'Straight Down the Middle.' Rubenfeld is a legal professor at Yale Law School

Citing state law, he said the ex-president is not a convicted felon despite the jury's verdict - that is, until a judge enters a judgment of guilty at his sentencing. The presidential perp is seen in Manhattan Criminal Court last month before the jury's verdict

'If you've been reading about this case - that Trump is already a convicted felon, the jury has convicted him, he's a convicted felon - well, guess what: that's not true,' the legal expert began.  

'You're not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict. You're not convicted unless the judge enters a judgment of guilt against you.'   

He reiterated: 'The judge still has the power, as I told you before, to throw out that verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal.

'You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt.'

'Now, in New York, it's very likely that Judge Merchan will enter that judgment of guilt against Trump on the same day that he issues sentencing,' Rubenfeld explained.

'That'd be July 11.'

Outlining the effort, he said that 'in this federal action, Trump would sue District Attorney [Alivin] Bragg and other state actors [involved in the case].'

Then, he would 'ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order, halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt until the federal courts have had an opportunity to review and rule out the serious constitutional arguments that exist,' he said.

Rubenfeld went on to claim it's a 'bad look for this country' to criminally target ex-presidents for 'unclear' crimes, before pointing to what he painted as problems with the seemingly resolved hush money case.

Trump, far left, watches as a jury foreperson delivers guilty verdicts with Judge Juan Merchan listening in on May 30. The 2024 Republican presumptive nominee is set to be sentenced on July 11, potentially sending him to prison right in time for the RNC in Wisconsin

The decision will be left up to Judge Merchan (pictured) - that is, unless Trump's legal team takes it out of his hands

He explained: 'Going after, criminally, a former president of the United States and somebody who is running for president now, that's a very bad look.

'It's an especially bad look when the folks bringing the case and the judge deciding it are members of the opposing political party,' he continued. 

'And it's an even worse look when the crime is so unclear that the state is hiding the ball about what the actual charges are right up through the trial and indeed into the trial.

'Even now, we don't know exactly what the jury found Trump guilty of,' Rubenfeld further claimed.

Pointing to the case's origin, he insisted those who criminally target members of opposing political parties, especially a 'poll-leading candidate' like Trump, 'better have the goods.'

'You better not be pursuing some novel legal theory where you have to hide the ball [and] it's not even clear what the charges are.'

That, he said, 'could [set] a very dangerous precedent for this country,' and is the reason 'why it's so important for a federal court to review the constitutionality of this prosecution.

Only then, can they truly discern whether the case was 'constitutional or was it not,' he said.

'The only way to achieve that before the election takes place is for the Trump team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily hold off the entry of the judgment of guilt,' Rubenfeld, and expert on constitutional law, said

'The only way to achieve that before the election takes place is for the Trump team to file an action in federal court and ask the federal court to temporarily hold off the entry of the judgment of guilt,' he continued.

Then, 'the federal courts, and maybe the Supreme Court itself, can, on an emergency basis, adjudicate the likelihood of success of these constitutional arguments.'

If that doesn't happen Trump, 77, could challenge the conviction with an appeal through the New York Appeals Court system as a means to move the Supreme Court, but 'would take years' to work in his favor, the Constitution law professor said.

It would also not address the 'irreparable harm' done to the politician's reputation and chances in what is amounting to a contentious election, where he is barely ahead of incumbent Joe Biden in most polls.

'Of course, that would take years, and that's a problem here,' he said of the likely drawbacks of such an action.

'It's a problem because the election will have taken place if this conviction is unlawful and unconstitutional, it could have an effect on that election,' he said.

Is the conviction was to be reversed years later, 'that effect could not be undone.'

'In legal terms, that's called irreparable harm,' he said

If that doesn't happen, Trump could challenge the conviction with an appeal - but that would not address the blow to not only his reputation, but his election chances. If the restraining order does through, 'the nation could get a ruling from the federal courts... before the election takes place,' Rubenfeld said

That said, if the restraining order does through, 'the nation could get a ruling from the federal courts, even the Supreme Court of the United States, before the election takes place,' Rubenfeld disclaimed.

'Maybe that's what the nation needs, and maybe that's what the law requires here,' he added, as he honed in on how Trump's legal team might control the damage already done.

Last week, at a trial in Manhattan, Trump was found guilty by the jury on all 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment administered to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in the buildup to the 2016 election.

He is now set to be sentenced July 11, after which he could be sent to prison.

If so, it would happen just days before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, throwing a monkey wrench into this year's cycle.

The decision, in the end, will be left up to Merchan - unless Trump's team is able to take it out of his hands.