Setting aside columnist Jon Huer’s tortured definition of crimes, the idea Trump should be judged by American voters via an election rather than by a jury of his peers is no doubt dear to Republicans but specious on all counts [“Between the White House and prison — The case for a national jury,” Recorder, Aug. 12]. To begin with, a jury is tasked with returning a unanimous verdict. That is hardly going to happen with the American public, a majority of whom has already judged Trump unfit for office — twice. Only the vagaries of the Electoral College allowed Trump to hold office — once.

Imagine a jury, tasked with returning only a majority rather than a unanimous opinion, in which half the jurors get two votes and the other half one. Then imagine that three of those jurors are denied the right to vote at all on the suspicion that they might acquit the defendant. That is a jury approximating the limitations imposed on the public’s ability to render a “fair” verdict in the case of Donald Trump’s alleged crimes by both the Electoral College and the fact that since the 2020 election numerous states have imposed ever greater restrictions on voting. Also consider that a jury is required to render a verdict based on the facts and only the facts, and then consider that one quarter to half of the American public refuses to believe the facts.

No, Donald Trump’s alleged crimes must be judged in a court of law by an impartial jury, not by American voters. The public needs to know before they vote if one of their presidential candidates is a convicted felon.

Kathe Geist

Charlemont