This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It already looks bad for President Trump in his looming trial over his statements regarding the 2020 election, now scheduled in Washington, D.C.
That's because D.C. is "the most extreme Democratic district in the country."
According to his column at Gatestone, where he is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow, longtime Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said, "Approximately 95% of the potential jurors register and vote Democrat. Whereas approximately 5% voted for Trump. Furthermore, the anger against Trump is understandable in light of the fact that the events of January 6th directly involved many citizens of the district. Moreover, the judge randomly selected to preside over this case has a long history of bias against Trump and his supporters, and her law firm has a long history of conflicts and corruption."
The situation seems wrong, given that the Constitution assures defendants an "impartial jury."
He explained, "The goal of the Sixth Amendment is to assure not only that the defendant is treated justly, but that the appearance of justice is satisfied as well. A jury and judge that are impartial, and seen to be impartial, are essential to achieving this goal. It is imperative, therefore, that in a case where the incumbent president has urged his attorney general to pursue his political opponent aggressively, all efforts must be made to ensure fairness."
He said the reasonable expectation is that "Prosecutors must lean over backward to persuade the public that partisan considerations played absolutely no role in the decision to indict. Agreeing to a change of venue and judge would go a long way toward seeing that justice is done."
However, he said that's not what to expect from the Joe Biden-supervised Department of Justice.
"If the prosecution case is strong, it should have no fear of a jury and judge outside of D.C. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said: the job of a prosecutor is not merely to maximize the chances of winning, but to assure that he wins fairly and justly. In order to achieve that goal, the prosecutors, in this case, should not oppose defense motions for a change of venue and judge. Nor should it oppose an appeal if the trial judge denies these well-founded defense motions."
He said, "In all likelihood, prosecutors will vigorously fight all efforts by the defense to assure an impartial jury and judge because they want every advantage that will help them secure a victory. They will point to defense efforts to secure advantages for their client and argue that the adversary system of justice requires them to do the same. But that is not the law. The Supreme Court clearly delineated a different role for prosecutors who represent the government."
He quoted from the high court, which ruled, "The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done."
He warned, "If an unfair trial results in a conviction, the impact will already be felt, even if it is reversed on appeal after the election, as the prosecution likely anticipates."