When Trump appeals, why should he win?

Arcangl86 said:

Just what it says on the tin. There are posters who seem confident that Trump's conviction will be overturned on appeal. What is that based on?

Click to expand...

From what I am seeing, a hopefulness born out of a profound misunderstanding of the appeals-process.
Yes, he should appeal it, this is a good and normal thing, (I have read (somewhere), that they’re allowed to prepare for the appeal, and get all of their ducks-in-a row, but cannot actually put anything before the appellate courts until after the sentencing)
But there has to be some sort of legal-underpinning besides, we got a bad judge.
Since the trial wasn’t on the TEEVEE, the case wasn’t really disseminated very well, so the facts about how the trial was won by the State, aren’t readily available, nor are the “appealable errors”, which is probably why we haven’t see much beyond, ‘they want to stop him from even running for President!’

This paltry fact-pool, won’t stop the call for him to appeal, which he will, (which he ought to do), without knowing exactly what they’re arguing for, (until after the appeal is released (or leaked) to the news media…and if they feel the need to vent, and say that Trump was “railroaded”, good, that’s why we’re all here.

Some may feel that if they admit that Trump might have, perhaps, in a moment-of-weakness, somehow, in a manner-of-speaking, “broke the law”, that he had a darned good reason to do that. Admitting that might shatter their view of him, and they won’t let that “happen”.

This too is “normal”, we’ve gotten here because of one man, love him or loath him (and anywhere in between), we’ve talked about almost nothing else since he announced in August 2015 his intent to run for President.
At the very least, his time in Office was “entertaining“, never a dull moment.

Arcangl86 said:

Just what it says on the tin. There are posters who seem confident that Trump's conviction will be overturned on appeal. What is that based on?

Click to expand...

Hope.

I want to know as well.

The trial seemed scrupulously above board, with the judge being quite conscious to avoid the typical appeal success pitfalls.

The biggest reason I have seen posted is because the 60 year law expert Alan Dershowitz is being paid to tell people how unfair it is for Mr Trump to be punished. Our distrust of his legal prowess is to be dismissed due to bias, whereas trust in his gaslighting is validated due to their own bias. Denial is thick as molasses in December.

Arcangl86 said:

Just what it says on the tin. There are posters who seem confident that Trump's conviction will be overturned on appeal. What is that based on?

Click to expand...

An appeal is a challenge to a previous legal determination.

Until all appeals have been exhausted a case is never fully settled ... it won't be known until that happens. It's very likely the completion of the appealing process will not be complete before the election.

Because this is such a high profile case ... I suspect it will eventually go to the Supreme Court (this is usually the step after all appeals).

It's our legal process .... how it ultimately turns out who knows?

Arcangl86 said:

Just what it says on the tin. There are posters who seem confident that Trump's conviction will be overturned on appeal. What is that based on?

Click to expand...

Their belief in Trump's false claims!

I see two things that superficially would be decent grounds for appeal. The statute of limitations claim and inadequate representation. Both fall apart rather quickly. Regarding any statute of limitations issue, if it were valid or even borderline it already would have happened. His legal team seems to have made some bad choices. It seems those were at Trumps insistence. There is a legal principle that you cannot benefit from your own misdeeds, so it fails on that count. Also, any poor choices by council would have to be material, any such claims would also probably fail on that count.

Arcangl86 said:

Just what it says on the tin. There are posters who seem confident that Trump's conviction will be overturned on appeal. What is that based on?

Click to expand...

I think there is a valid claim that this is a novel prosecution and that the underlying legal theory needs to be vetted to see if it withstands scrutiny.

The reason Trump is likely to win on appeals is because the prosecution for the asset inflation and the payments to Daniels both applied the law in unique and rare ways. The more creative or "novel" you get, the more risk you take as a prosecutor.

"An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses." Dissolving Trump's business empire would stand apart in history of NY fraud law

On Trump's 32 felony convictions. The DA coddled together a crime to bring the charges to a felony in a way that was NEVER done before. "The Washington Post reviewed the New York State Law Reporting Bureau as far back as 2000 for any relevant case law regarding this specific statute. The report found “two entries in which a judge issued legal opinions on the statute. Both were from [Judge Juan] Merchan last year in rejecting Trump’s motions to have the case dismissed.” That’s how rarely Section 17-152 is prosecuted in New York. And that fact makes Bragg’s decision to primarily premise the prosecution of a former president of the United States on that statute even more novel." Source Opinion | The novel legal theory at the heart of Alvin Bragg's case against Trump

There are other reasons as well. Was their bias? Were the jury instructions fair. Were there any exclusions in court by the judges that failed to protect Trump's rights? It will be gone over richly and all kinds of stuff will be brought out.

I might also point out that if you are rich and are a white collar criminal, you will have far better results at the Supreme Court level. Scary but here is some evidence. How the Supreme Court Favors the Rich and Powerful

Richard T said:

"An Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of civil cases under the law showed that such a penalty has only been imposed a dozen previous times, and Trump’s case stands apart in a significant way: It’s the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses." Dissolving Trump's business empire would stand apart in history of NY fraud law

Click to expand...

Did you intend to include this in your post?
Your quote and article is dated Jan. 2024. This article talks about the civil case against the Trump Org. for fraud.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump, with lawyers Christopher Kise and Alina Habba, attends the closing arguments in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court in the Manhattan borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024.

Hank77 said:

Did you intend to include this in your post?
Your quote and article is dated Jan. 2024. This article talks about the civil case against the Trump Org. for fraud.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump, with lawyers Christopher Kise and Alina Habba, attends the closing arguments in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court in the Manhattan borough of New York, Thursday, Jan. 11, 2024.

Click to expand...

Yes, thanks for letting me clarify. I cite two cases that Trump lost both with very unique characteristics. The largest civil one (so far) and the criminal one where he was convicted.

Richard T said:

Yes, thanks for letting me clarify. I cite two cases that Trump lost both with very unique characteristics. The largest civil one (so far) and the criminal one where he was convicted.

Click to expand...

A defendant who breaks the law in new and complicated ways, and gets convicted for these actions is “normal”.

Appeals reversal rate 12%. And most of those are not acquittal but retrial.
Merchan was said to be very careful to eliminate any grounds for appeal.
I do think Trump's followers believe an appeal will succeed in the Supreme Court.
Two judges have already demonstrated they will sacrifice every scrap of ethics and honor they still possess to defend the indefensible felon.
That means they only need 3 more.
On the other hand, wouldn't it be great to have another trial and see a second unanimous conviction?

Pommer said:

A defendant who breaks the law in new and complicated ways, and gets convicted for these actions is “normal”.

Click to expand...

True, but a prosecutor that is creative and fabricates charges in complicated ways and gets it overturned on appeal is equally "normal."