This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The business records lawfare case against President Donald Trump brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, overseen by Juan Merchan, a judge whose daughter was fundraising for Democrats off her father's courtroom rulings, created a "thrill kill environment" for Democrats.

It involved guilty verdicts to 34 charges that started as misdemeanors that were dead but became zombie felonies when Bragg claimed that were done in pursuit of another, hidden, crime.

But that environment soon will be over, according to Jonathan Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.

He's considered a constitutional expert who has testified before Congress on those issues and even has represented members in court.

The verdict for Trump came last week from an all-leftist jury in the far-left enclave of Manhattan, where Turley explains the case was made "nearly un-winnable" for Trump through the manipulation of the court system, the vagueness of the charges, even the instructions from the judge.

He commented, "Clarence Darrow would likely have lost with those instructions after the errors in the case by Judge Juan Merchan. At that point, it became a legal canned hunt. So the attention will now shift to the appellate courts. While it may be tough going initially in the New York court system for the former president, this case could well end up in the federal system and the United States Supreme Court. The thrill kill environment of last week may then dissipate as these glaring errors are presented in higher courts."

He pointed out the celebrations by Democrats, but warned that the case "is a target-rich environment for an appeal."

Trump, meanwhile, has called on the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and end Joe Biden's political prosecutions of him. The Manhattan case is just one of a long list being orchestrated by Biden, through Democrat prosecutors.

Turley pointed out that the district where the trial was held voted 90% against President Trump, but the real fault is with the prosecutors and judge.

For instance, "Acting Supreme Court justice Juan Merchan was handpicked for this case rather than randomly selected. This is only the latest in a litany of Trump cases where Merchan has meted out tough rulings against Trump and his organization. With any other defendant, there would likely be outrage over his selection. Merchan donated to President Biden. … We learned later that Merchan has contributed to a group to stop the GOP and Trump. Merchan’s daughter is also a Democratic organizer who has helped raise millions against Trump and the GOP and for the Democrats."

Merchan's significant failure, Turley explained, was his "failure" to protect the rights of the defendant. … It is not just the appearance of a conflict with Judge Merchan but a record of highly biased decisions."

Turley called Merchan's courtroom decisions "incomprehensible and conflicted."

Then there were Bragg's charges.

The Department of Justice earlier had looked at the same facts and declined to pursue any prosecution.

"The Federal Election Commission likewise found no basis for a civil fine. With no federal prosecution, Bragg decided to use an unprecedented criminal theory not only to zap a dead misdemeanor into life (after the expiration of the statute of limitation) but to allow him to try violations of not only federal election law but also federal taxation violations. In other words, the Justice Department would not prosecute federal violations, so Bragg effectively did it in state court," he explained.

Then there were the closing arguments, that were "unclear about what Bragg was alleging."

And the evidence.

"Merchan allowed a torrent of immaterial and prejudicial evidence to be introduced into the trial by the prosecution. That included testimony from porn actress Stormy Daniels that went into details about having sex with Trump. She included a clear suggestion that Trump raped her. After this utterly disgraceful testimony, Merchan expressed regret but blamed the defense counsel, despite their prior objections to the testimony. He had previously chastised counsel for making continued objections, but now he criticized them for not continuing to make objections," Turley pointed out.

And, despite Merchan's instructions otherwise, prosecutors "proceeded to expressly state that it was 'a fact' that federal election violations occurred in this case and that Trump ordered those violations."

And Merchan censored a potential defense witness, ordering that the former chairman of the Federal Election Commission could not say "hush money" payments were not federal election violations.

Then, too, Merchan's instructions smashed any hope of a fair verdict and the result was that "When the verdict came in, we were still unsure what Trump was convicted of."

That was because Merchan abandoned the requirement for a unanimous jury.

"The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the requirement of unanimity in criminal convictions is sacrosanct in our system. While there was unanimity that the business records were falsified to hide or further a second crime, there was no express finding of what that crime may have been," he said.

And, Turley noted, there were failures in "due process violations on the lack of specificity in the indictment, vagueness of the underlying state law and the lack of evidentiary foundation for key defenses like 'the legitimate press function.'"

Turley's warning? "If Biden wins the election before this conviction is overturned, history’s judgment will be deafening."