By Scott W. Cameron
Prior to casting a vote for President of the United States of America, citizens should determine whether a candidate has the “moral character” to serve. In making that decision, a citizen should determine if a candidate’s prior actions should disqualify them from being deemed worthy of trust.
As opinions about a candidate’s worthiness to serve differ widely in both traditional media and social media, further inquiry is essential. Personal experience would be helpful, but few citizens have had a personal association with a presidential candidate. Reliance upon trusted individuals who have been associated with or worked with a candidate is helpful, but there may be differences of opinion here, as well. Citizens could study the history of a candidate’s business dealings to determine honesty and integrity, but this analysis may be overly complex and not within their expertise.
One helpful avenue of inquiry is to study decisions made by courts of law in which a candidate has been a defendant. The judicial system is charged with the responsibility of determining the “truth” regarding a defendant’s actions. In a criminal case, each individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty, while in a civil case, the “trier of fact” determines whether the defendant is liable to another.
In courts of law, the “trier of fact” is either a judge or a jury charged with the responsibility of determining the truth about what happened in a given situation. The “trier of fact” must listen to conflicting evidence in the form of verbal and documentary evidence and determine who is telling the truth. Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness is rejected as “hearsay.” In a bench trial, a judge is called the “trier of fact;” while in a jury trial, the jurors are “triers of fact.” In each case a defendant (either a person accused of breaking a law or violating the rights of another) is allowed the opportunity to choose if they would like a jury trial.
Triers of fact hear admissible evidence pursuant to rules established to ensure reliability and fairness to the proceeding and to parties, and then make decisions in accordance with those rules. Judges are guided by Rules of Evidence, such as trustworthiness, relevance, timelines, and prejudice in determining which verbal or documentary evidence may be considered by the trier of fact to aid them in making their decisions.
Therefore, the judicial system could be helpful to citizens in determining a candidate’s “moral character.” A case in point is candidate Donald Trump. At the present time, former President Donald Trump is a defendant in five different lawsuits and he is the only former president who has been a defendant in a criminal lawsuit. The five cases in which he is a defendant are colloquially designated: the Hush Money trial (with jury selection beginning April 15, 2024), the Georgia Election Case; the Federal Election Case; the Classified Documents Case; and the Civil Fraud Case. While former President Trump should be presumed innocent in these four criminal trials and one civil trial, until he is proven guilty, there is one civil trial, now on appeal, wherein a jury has determined the former president’s liability.
As reported in an article by Larry Neumeister dated March 12, 2024 Updated 4:19 pm MDT by Associated Press, “[Former President Trump] posted a $92 million bond to ensure that writer E. Jean Carroll will receive a jury award for his verbal attacks against her if it survives appeal. The jury had concluded that Trump defamed Carroll in 2022 and sexually abused her in 1996, though it found that he had not raped her according to how rape was defined in New York state. The judge, though, said afterward that the jury’s findings were consistent with how rape is defined in some jurisdictions.”
To assist citizens in determining whether or not to vote for candidate Trump, we should hope that each of these cases is heard by duly appointed “triers of fact” and the respective verdicts or decisions rendered prior to the November 2024 election. Any delay in these court proceedings would violate the principle initially articulated in the Magna Carta and more fully explained by former 19th century English Prime Minister William E. Gladstone: “justice delayed is justice denied.”
While the speed of these trials is not within our control as citizens, and while other court decisions would provide further evidence upon which we could base our decision as to candidate Trump’s “moral character,” at present we must give full regard to the verdict against candidate Trump in the “defamation suit” brought by E. Jean Carroll.
Scott W. Cameron is a former attorney and law school professor.