State of New York vs Trump, et al - the civil fraud case against the Trump Organization

[Maybenaut]

Trump asks New York appeals court to throw out $454 million civil judgment

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/22/politics ... index.html

Lawyers for Donald Trump asked a New York appeals court Monday to throw out the $454 million judgment in his civil fraud trial, arguing that the monetary penalty was unconstitutional and that most of the case should have been barred because the conduct was too old.

The former president’s attorneys raised several other legal arguments they lost at the trial court-level, including that no bank or counterparty lost money on loans, saying the judge made reversal mistakes in his rulings.

<snip>

I find this sort of commentary so, so annoying. If they hadn’t made and lost these issues at the trial level, they’d likely be considered waived on appeal.

Parenthetically, when I practiced, the government would invariable say something like, “The defense trots out the same tired arguments that failed at trial.” If I responded (sometimes I just let it go), my response ranged from snarky (“So?”) to indignant (“It is indeed regrettable that the United States considers the guarantees of our Constitution “tired,” but in any event…”).

[Sam the Centipede]

The former president’s attorneys raised several other legal arguments they lost at the trial court-level, including that no bank or counterparty lost money on loans, saying the judge made reversal mistakes in his rulings.

I find this sort of commentary so, so annoying. If they hadn’t made and lost these issues at the trial level, they’d likely be considered waived on appeal.

I wonder how many non-lawyers understand that aspect (object now or forever hold your peace)? It's only relevant to what happens inside courts, not to ordinary folks trying to stay legal. I wouldn't have known it absent my ediculation at Teh Yooniversity of Teh Fogbone. Even then I don't know how universal the principle is in legal systems with a similar heritage, e.g. Britain, other former British colonies, etc.

But YES!! of course you're right Mayb!! Journos or commentators writing about legal activities should understand those relatively elementary facts. They shouldn't be more ignorant than me, which is setting a low bar.

[Maybenaut]

The former president’s attorneys raised several other legal arguments they lost at the trial court-level, including that no bank or counterparty lost money on loans, saying the judge made reversal mistakes in his rulings.

I find this sort of commentary so, so annoying. If they hadn’t made and lost these issues at the trial level, they’d likely be considered waived on appeal.

I wonder how many non-lawyers understand that aspect (object now or forever hold your peace)? It's only relevant to what happens inside courts, not to ordinary folks trying to stay legal. I wouldn't have known it absent my ediculation at Teh Yooniversity of Teh Fogbone. Even then I don't know how universal the principle is in legal systems with a similar heritage, e.g. Britain, other former British colonies, etc.

But YES!! of course you're right Mayb!! Journos or commentators writing about legal activities should understand those relatively elementary facts. They shouldn't be more ignorant than me, which is setting a low bar.

It’s not universal. Some things are never waived. Varies with jurisdictions (states and fed each have their own rules), and varies depending on civil vs. criminal.

But most things are waived. My main problem with the commentary is that the writer is trying to show that the arguments are weak solely because they failed at trial. Maybe they are weak; maybe they’re not. But *almost* every successful appeal started with an argument that failed at trial.

[bob]

But *almost* every successful appeal started with an argument that failed at trial.

And it simply better (and more accurate) writing to say, "His lawyers argued the trial court made several errors."

Compare

The former president’s attorneys raised several other legal arguments they lost at the trial court-level, including that no bank or counterparty lost money on loans, saying the judge made reversal mistakes in his rulings.

with

The former president’s attorneys said the trial judge made reversal mistakes in his rulings, and highlighted no bank or counterparty lost money on loans.

[Slim Cognito]

I know this is a very simplistic comparison, but whenever I read that, I think to myself, Sure judge, I was doing 120 on the interstate, but I didn't crash and nobody was injured.

[Foggy]

the trial judge made reversal mistakes

No. The trial judge made reversible mistakes. Sheesh.

That's a diction error.

[p0rtia]

It always bugs me when, after some obvious and gruesome crime, the culprit pleads Not Guilty at the arraignment, and MMS and SM lose their collective shizzle at the audacity. No one explains that the NG plea at that point is (always/often?) mandatory.

[bob]

No one explains that the NG plea at that point is (always/often?) mandatory.

Not guilty is the presumptive plea. If the defendant refuses to plea (and some do), the court just enters a not-guilty plea on their behalf.

Sometimes there are guilty pleas at arraignment when there's a pre-arraignment deal already in place.

And, very rarely, sometimes defendants do plead guilty at the outset, believing they'll get a lighter sentence if they do. (That's when it would be appropriate to lose the shizzle; it is that rare.)