The indictment of Trump was on Mar. 30, 2023. Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records. The trial took place in Manhattan. This court case was the result of a sum of hush money given to adult actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election. According to NPR, “By doing this they allegedly violated election laws and made false entries in the business records of various entities in New York. They also allegedly took steps that mischaracterized, for tax purposes, the true nature of the payments made in the scheme.” Trump was found guilty of all charges against him. The indictment of Trump will remain a historic first for the USA, as it was the first case of a former president being found guilty of a crime. This takes us to the debate topic of this month: should former presidents go through normal court proceedings for charges against them? 

The US is built upon several amendments. If former presidents had to undergo different court proceedings, that could be seen as a violation of the sixth amendment. The sixth amendment states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…” If the public were to change rules concerning what a former president’s trial might entail, then they no longer have the right to similar trials to their peers. Similarly, keeping court procedures the same for all cases ensures that everyone is treated fairly in court. A new set of rules for the court could muddle the justness of the trial and with that charge unfairly. Former presidents should have typical court proceedings because otherwise, it could* violate an amendment. 

* For clarity purposes, the reason for saying “could” instead of “would” is that the amendments are constantly being scrutinized for different meanings. What the public holds the sixth amendment to mean at this current time could change in the future. Additionally, different judges and states hold the amendments concerning court trials to mean different things. “Could” is used, concerning the sixth amendment, to leave room for ethical discussion surrounding the amendments. 

In an average courtroom, there must be a jury to ensure the case is fair. In a majority of cases, a jury member who is involved, has private information, or has a strong prejudice against the case will be excused from the hearing. This is to preserve a just and fair result from the jury. Under these conditions, a jury for Trump’s hearing sounds unlikely to meet all the marks. According to a Scroll member, "I think an unbiased jury is important to a court trial, but I just do not see how a jury could be gathered for this trial." Sadly, not much information can be gathered on the selection process for the jury of this case. This information can be used as a reason to not hold typical courtroom proceedings for former presidents. Former presidents will not be able to get an unbiased jury, due to once being a pivotal political figure. Former presidents should not have typical court proceedings because it is unlikely to find a just jury for their trial.