Speaking on Fox News Channel on Thursday, May 30, the day of the shocking New York jury verdict convicting former President Donald Trump on all 34 counts he was charged with by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Trump attorney Will Scharf suggested that the Trump legal team might go on the counter-offensive and sue DA Bragg for “malicious prosecution.”
That came when Mr. Scharf spoke to Fox News Channel host Dana Perino before the jury verdict about the case and whether the Trump team will take action against Judge Juan Merchan, particularly if Trump ended up acquitted in the case. Scharf said that the Trump legal team would “have to consider our legal options at that point,” but that the more likely target of Trump’s team is DA Bragg.
Perino, posing the question and introducing the vengeance topic, asked, “If the jury comes back today and President Trump is acquitted, does the Trump team take any action against Judge Merchan? Do you file any lawsuit or any case against him?”
Scharf, who also vowed that Trump would “speedily appeal” a guilt verdict, saying, “We will move with all possible haste to undo any kind of unjust verdict,” told Perino that really the prosecution itself was the big problem and that it looks like the case was brought against Trump just because he is Trump and running for president.
Scharf, speaking about that alleged malicious prosecution and going on the warpath against DA Bragg, said, “I think the case for malicious prosecution here is extraordinarily strong, OK? I mean, this is not a case that would have been brought against any defendant not named Donald Trump and any defendant who, frankly, wasn’t running for president.”
If they were to do so, tort law in New York requires that a plaintiff attempting to show malicious prosecution prove 1) that a legal proceeding was initiated against the plaintiff, 2) that the proceeding ended with a favorable result for the plaintiff, a lack of probable cause of evidence against the plaintiff, and malice. Here, as the case did not end with the Trump team winning, it is unlikely that a malicious prosecution case would prove efficacious unless the verdict is overturned on appeal and Trump is later found not guilty.
Watch Scharf here:
"*" indicates required fields
Trump, posting on Truth Social about the case after the verdict, said, “My bookkeeper called a “Legal Expense,” on the “tiny” description line of the Ledger, a “Legal Expense,” openly paid to my lawyer, at that time a fully accredited one. I was not involved in that designation, but what else would you have called it? It was, in fact, a LEGAL EXPENSE. ”
He continued, “That is the so-called “CRIME.” On top of that, I wasn’t allowed by the judge to use, in any form, the standard RELIANCE ON COUNSEL DEFENSE (ADVICE OF COUNSEL!). My lawyer, at the time, did virtually everything on the NDA (NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT), and I assumed that what he did was correct. I did nothing wrong, and frankly, there was nothing done wrong – NDA’s are standard, commonly used, and LEGAL. MAGA2024! WITCH HUNT! IF THIS CAN HAPPEN TO ME, IT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYONE!”