Former President Donald Trump indicted for various crimesincluding misnamed espionage law violations.

This 1917 statute is misnamed because it covers so many crimes that don’t involve espionage or giving secrets to an enemy. In fact, the term has been widely used over the years to describe patriotic Americans who have opposed war and other government actions.

In Mr Trump’s case, he has been accused primarily of misconduct. Possession of confidential material. (Related: Alan Dershowitz: It’s more important than ever for Trump’s trial to be televised)

However, because he is indicted under the Espionage Act, many people mistakenly believe that the charges against him relate to espionage, espionage, and even treason.

The use of the term spy puts Trump at a huge disadvantage in the courtroom of public opinion. If a jury heard that word in connection with his case, it would be even worse in court.

So Trump’s lawyers should act immediately on what is called a motion. at the limit Prohibit the use of the word spy by prosecutors, both in and out of court, especially before a jury.

“Espionage” is irrelevant to future trials. It’s reminiscent of Mr. Trump’s involvement in the worst possible criminal acts.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg was executed for espionage. Some former government employees have served lengthy prison terms for espionage.

These defendants actually provided confidential and other sensitive information to their opponents. Based on the evidence in his lawsuit, Trump should not be painted with such a sly brush.

It is common for judges to forbid the use of unfavorable language against prosecutors in front of jurors.

Judges usually weigh proof effect against adverse effect. In criminal cases, judges should always err on the side of defending the defendant’s rights.

This is not a hard case to forbid the use of the term spy. Because espionage has little or no evidentiary effect and is very likely to lead to prejudice. The use of the word in the name of a law is no reason to allow prosecutors to use it. The statutes often have broad names that have little or nothing to do with the charges in a particular case.

Imagine a hypothesis like this. Congress passed legislation enacting it entitled “Protection Against Child Abuse and Insider Trading Act.”

Should prosecutors be allowed to refer to the first part of the law in cases not related to child abuse? Of course not.

And even if Congress misnamed the law and included the word espionage, the prosecution in this case should not be allowed to use the word espionage.

This case should be referred to the law only by referring to the alleged illegal possession of confidential material. That is the essence of this prosecution, and defendants should not be biased by reference to other aspects of the statute not directly related to this case.

It is not too early for the defense to file this motion or for the court to grant it. President Trump has already been stigmatized by media references to the law’s label “espionage.”

Courts can’t stop the media from using the term, but explicitly excluding it from trials could influence public opinion and, in turn, juror candidates.

Espionage is a term that describes the most sinister intentions of the accused. Its effects are subtle and sometimes unconscious, but it is a reality.

The government will not suffer any prejudice from the prohibition of a court term. You can still argue that President Trump’s actions may have endangered national security, but you won’t get the help of a law that misspelled his name.

Indeed, improper possession of top-secret material and its fall into the wrong hands could pose some danger to national security.

But that would also apply to the improper possession or use of classified material by others who have not been charged, including President Joe Biden, Vice President Mike Pence and former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. (Related: Alan Dershowitz: What if Trump and his prosecutors were both guilty?)

Americans have the right to judge how serious these dangers are in each case, but prosecutors’ abuse of the word spy just because the law requires it does not allow them to do so. should not be affected.

Indeed, the media themselves should take more responsibility to explain that the accusations are based on statutory provisions that have nothing to do with espionage.

In any trial of Donald Trump there will be bias on both sides. He is hated and loved by those who have already chosen one side or the other.

It would be very difficult to select a juror who could consider the evidence without prejudice or prejudice. Courts should do everything in their power to mitigate these risks for fair trials.

One way to do this is to eliminate all references to the word spy in court.

Alan Dershowitz is professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of Get Trump, Guilt by Accusation, and The Price of Principle. Democrat Andrew Stein served as Speaker of the New York City Council from 1986 to 1994.this is reissue From the Alan Dershowitz Newsletter.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, non-partisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers capable of serving large audiences. All reissues must include our company logo, press byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.