A Deeply Fractured US

[TacticalTea]

Hypothetically, if these convictions are ultimately upheld after all appeals have been exhausted, would you accept the legitimacy and validity of it then?

Can it go to the Supreme Court?

If so, I don't expect this would happen.

It seems like a novel interpretation to consider a personal hush money payment like a campaign contribution.

Guess I'll have to read the decision to understand how they got to that conclusion.

 

[brihard]

Can it go to the Supreme Court?

If so, I don't expect this would happen.

It seems like a novel interpretation to consider a personal hush money payment like a campaign contribution.

Guess I'll have to read the decision to understand how they got to that conclusion.

It would have several levels to go through first. SCOTUS can’t and won’t hear any and all state stuff, but if there’s something appealable they touches on constitutional or federal issues they could.

Generally as something is appealed up, the legal questions under appeal get fewer and narrower. I believe New York State has two levels of appellate court that would need to be moved through before SCOTUS.

I’m very sure we’re gonna find out.

 

[Lumber]

Can it go to the Supreme Court?

If so, I don't expect this would happen.

It seems like a novel interpretation to consider a personal hush money payment like a campaign contribution.

Guess I'll have to read the decision to understand how they got to that conclusion.

You never answered his question. If this went through every appellate court, including the SC, would you conclude that, "yea, i guess he did do the things and those things were illegal."

 

[TacticalTea]

You never answered his question. If this went through every appellate court, including the SC, would you conclude that, "yea, i guess he did do the things and those things were illegal."

He wasn't asking me.

Edit: but to answer your question, it would be unwise to make such a premature generalization.

Supreme courts aren't perfect, their judgements are not stamped with divine authority (maybe in Iran?). I often disagree with the rulings of the SCC, just as many Democrats often disagree with those of SCOTUS. The Supremes themselves regularly disagree with each other, and unanimous rulings are not standard, common as they may be.

 

[Cloud Cover]

A trial or trial outcome has an in-state appeal path in NY that is not much different than Ontario’s processes.
This is very tricky and requires some deft legal stick handling, but in some limited circumstances leave to appeal the decision of a motion that is ancillary to the main litigation can be appealed directly to the US Supreme Court. If Trumps lawyers bring a procedural motion and lose that motion, they (or the prosecution) theoretically can use the appeal process for the motion to have that particular aspect dealt with by a court of final appeal ( the USSC). All other proceedings in the main matter are halted until the motion appeal is dealt with. In Ontario, Telus* was able to do exactly this when they lost a lower court motion to have their rather enormous costs reimbursed when complying with a single Search Warrant and Assistance Order. My understanding is that rules in New York State are not much different and you can bet Trumps lawyers are plotting this out based on some articulable legal grounds that will require the court of final appeal to opine and pronounce on some duty or other head of appeal.
*Telus lost that appeal in the SCC, and expended hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply with just one warrant. The slap down they received from the SCC about it being too expensive to comply was epic.

 

[brihard]

You never answered his question. If this went through every appellate court, including the SC, would you conclude that, "yea, i guess he did do the things and those things were illegal."

I was asking QV.

 

[TacticalTea]

but in some limited circumstances leave to appeal the decision of a motion that is ancillary to the main litigation can be appealed directly to the US Supreme Court.

Given that the convict is the preferred candidate for the upcoming presidential election, it seems we may be in such circumstances (depending on how the case(s) end up impacting the campaign). Just as Bush and Gore were, 24 years ago.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A) Commentators aren't that bright to start with; and B) commentators take a selective view of what they want their target audience to hear.

If the "predicative" crime wasn't there in the indictment then a judge would have struck the charges on one of the many attempts by the defence to strike the cases. The underlying offence is a matter of law for the judge to decide. The jury merely applies the evidence presented to see if it proves the crime alleged in the indictment was, in fact, committed.

By "commentator" I mean US-trained former and practicing lawyers, and professors of law. Their thoughts I find more relevant about the structure of case and advisability of calling witnesses than the musing of Canadians here.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It matters when I see how many elected officials are jumping on the bandwagon proclaiming that the trial was political and the jury decision was rigged.

They don't matter. What matters are the people in the legal community - particularly the ones whose names I readily recognize as habitual supporters of Democratic and progressive politics - saying the same things.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I have once been told that it was best not to interact with witnesses at all to prevent contaminating their testimony.

Unlikely, since lawyers routinely prepare witnesses.

 

[TacticalTea]

Unlikely, since lawyers routinely prepare witnesses.

Mine was a subtle commentary on the imperfectness of our judicial system.

The mere fact that there is a system doesn't mean it produces the right answers every time it is prodded.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Can it go to the Supreme Court?

The prosecution will certainly try, if appeals have to go that far. If it does, I expect the case to be overturned unanimously, and that will happen long after the election has been decided. If Trump wins on appeal after losing the election, political rancor in the US will reach a new height.

 

[brihard]

Guess I'll have to read the decision to understand how they got to that conclusion.

Sorry, missed this bit- with a jury verdict you don’t get a written decision as you typically would with a judge. The jury bears no responsibility to articulate their decision. It’s one of the strategic choices in deciding whether to go by jury or judge alone. A judge’s written decision can provide a record for appeal of the verdict based on error. With a jury verdict, most of that is closed off. An appeal will generally focus on perceived errors in the judge’s jury instructions, or in other legal issues that were wrangled with along the way like evidence admissibility.

Unlikely, since lawyers routinely prepare witnesses.

Yup. A witness is under no obligation to have a witness prep meeting with either side, but they’re completely normal to have happen.

 

[TacticalTea]

Sorry, missed this bit- with a jury verdict you don’t get a written decision as you typically would with a judge. The jury bears no responsibility to articulate their decision.

Yeah, I realized that after writing it. Will have to wait for an appellate court's decision...

Such a decision would probably go over precisely what many are wondering about since no one is really arguing the facts here, it's all a question of law.

 

[lenaitch]

Can it go to the Supreme Court?

If so, I don't expect this would happen.

It seems like a novel interpretation to consider a personal hush money payment like a campaign contribution.

Guess I'll have to read the decision to understand how they got to that conclusion.

I'm not that familiar with US jurisprudence but, if it is anything like ours, the grounds for appeal in relation to jury trials is quite a bit narrower. The grounds are basically limited to errors in law (including process). Unless the defence can try to strike enough of the evidence that the jury heard, the jury is the trier of fact and it is almost impossible to appeal how the panel came to the conclusion it did. There is one avenue of 'unreasonable verdict' but the bar is high. The defence tried to get the judge to strike the verdict immediately at trial, which is a fairly common tactic. If you don't shoot you can't score.

*****

I suspect the committed Republicans won't be moved; neither the committed Democrats. It's the mushy middle roughly 1/3 of the electorate that will be impacted by this.

 

[brihard]

Meanwhile, the FAFO for trying to overturn the election continues. The DC Bar has recommended that Rudy Giuliani be disbarred for some of his utterly frivolous legal pleading in the overturn attempts.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[brihard]

And, on the overarching theme of this thread, the rhetoric advocating political violence appears to be picking up, including predictable calls to dox and harass the jury, and threats against prosecutors.

Trump supporters try to doxx jurors and post violent threats after his conviction

On social media and web forums, users called for jurors, judges and prosecutors to be killed after the former president was found guilty on 34 felony counts.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[QV]

Ah, so being convicted of felonies can only be good for Trump.

Trump supporters, in every possible scenario:

You’d have to have been paying attention since the Russia collusion hoax to understand this.

 

[QV]

Meanwhile, the FAFO for trying to overturn the election continues. The DC Bar has recommended that Rudy Giuliani be disbarred for some of his utterly frivolous legal pleading in the overturn attempts.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Lawfare.

 

[brihard]

Lawfare.

Precisely. He and others tried to abuse their professional status and accreditation as lawyers to jam up the legal system with tantrum-filings after their preferred candidate lost. They invariably lost these actions, and in some cases their professional misconduct was so egregious they don’t get to be members of the profession anymore. Glad you have your head wrapped around that.

Similarly, Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis, who pled guilty to a felony in the Georgia election interference RICO case, has lost her right to practice law in Colorado for three years. They cut her a break and didn’t outright disbar her because she was only an accessory.

Jenna Ellis, Trump lawyer who pleaded guilty in Georgia case, is barred from practicing law in Colorado for three years

Ellis agreed to a stipulated disciplinary order with Colorado’s Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel

coloradosun.com