In his new show, Straight Down the Middle, Rubenfeld notes three obvious issues for Trump's legal team to use;

Selective Prosecution: The possibility that the prosecution was driven by political motives against Trump, which if true, could constitute selective prosecution—a practice deemed unconstitutional as it involves targeting an individual for prosecution based on discriminatory reasons.

Vagueness of Charges: The indictment did not clearly specify the secondary crime Trump was accused of concealing through falsified business records, potentially violating the Sixth Amendment right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him.

Non-unanimous Jury Verdict: The judge's instruction allowing the jury to be non-unanimous regarding the specifics of the secondary crime could infringe upon the constitutional requirement for unanimous verdicts in criminal prosecutions, challenging the fairness of the trial.

"The indictment charged Trump with a two-step crime falsifying business records to conceal a second crime but never said what that second crime was," he said, adding "Under the Sixth Amendment every criminal defendant has a right to know the charges against him."

He also suggested that Trump could sue Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and other state actors in federal court and ask for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) against Judge Juan Merchan against entering a judgement of guilt.

"You're not a convicted felon because of a jury verdict. You're not convicted unless the judge enters a judgment of guilt against you. The judge still has the power, as I told you before, to throw out that verdict and enter a judgment of acquittal. You are not convicted until the judge enters that judgment of guilt," he said.

"So what would this federal case be about? In this federal action, Trump would sue District Attorney Bragg and other state actors and ask the judge, the federal judge, for an emergency temporary restraining order halting Judge Merchan from entering that judgment of guilt until the federal courts have had an opportunity to review and rule on the serious constitutional arguments that exist here."