Yes we all assume he'll appeal but doesn't there have to be some basis?

[Stardust Mirror]

Doesn't there have to be some sort of reasonable assertion of an error in law or fact by the lower court for an appeal to even be accepted by an appeals court?

I know this has probably been addressed elsewhere sorry I didn't notice it.

[Johonny]

1. They will appeal the statute of limitations

And also possibly the jury instructions. The goal isn't to win, but delay, delay. He's old, he doesn't need to delay the sentence too long if there is jail time.

[edisdead]

13. And all the while he will be called convicted felon ex-president

[dalton99a]

2. (1) Proceedings unfair, (2) Proceedings very unfair, (3) Judge corrupt, (4) Judge's daughter corrupt, (5) Joe Biden

(6) Joe Biden, (7) Joe Biden, (8) Joe Biden, ad nauseam

[Stardust Mirror]

4. you left out "mean"

[AllaN01Bear]

10. and nasty.

[Susan Calvin]

25. And ugly. nt

[AllaN01Bear]

28. indeed,

[Ocelot II]

3. The claims of error at the trial have to be supported with precedent

and good-faith argument, but if you dig around you can usually find a case or two that might sort of support your position, even if it's shaky. I expect the legal grounds for the appeal will include whether certain evidence or testimony should have been admitted or excluded, issues with the jury instructions, especially with respect to how the jury was to consider the false business records vs. the underlying crime, the failure of the judge to grant their motion for a directed verdict (that will go nowhere). The usual stuff. In most states the next level of appellate court has to hear any case that's appealed.

[Stardust Mirror]

5. thanks for the reply

and helpful info, even if it wasn't the answer I was hoping for

[Happy Hoosier]

9. I think this post nails it.

His lawyers are just barely competent enough to dig up something to showhorn in to a brief.

But from what I've seen, the experts think Merchan's rulings are well within the heavy dark lines of the law. But we'll see.

[Hugin]

16. I do have a relevant general question about appeals for you...

Asking for a friend.

Don’t some kinds of convictions come with an automatic appeal? I don’t believe that The-convict-who-is-convicted-with-convictions’ convictions rises to the level for this type of appeal. I seem to remember hearing that capital convictions have an automatic appeal process.

[Ocelot II]

19. Depends on state law. In my state a first-degree murder appeal goes directly

to the state Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeals, and it isn't a discretionary appeal; that makes it "automatic," though the defendant still has to jump through some procedural hoops. I don't know what the rule in NY is, but I'm guessing a procedure like that, if there is one, would apply only to murder cases and the like. So Trump probably will have to go through the normal layers of the state's appellate courts like everybody else.

[onenote]

6. He can appeal as a matter of right. He might lose, but the appellate division has to take the appeal.

[Maeve]

7. Reasonable assertion to get an appeal upheld, yes

But not just to file. He may claim statute of limitations but ... most reasonable lawyers say that won't fly in the circumstances. He appeals all the time. And loses.

[unblock]

8. Several grounds for appeal. Whether they'll hold up is another question.

They will argue:

Judge was biased because daughter democrat something something.

DA supposedly targeting Donnie as part of his own campaign to become DA.

Atypical treatment in pursuing felony charges for what they claim would normally be charged as a misdemeanor were it anyone else.

Should have been allowed a change in venue.

Gag order improperly limited the defense preventing Donnie from properly testifying.

And I'm sure they'll have a laundry list of specific decisions the judge made during the trial to complain about.

I believe these claims are entirely or nearly entirely baseless, but as a matter of form, they are reasonable grounds for an appeal. My expectation is that the appeal will be heard and denied.

[Ms. Toad]

11. That had order has nothing to do with Trump testifying.

The gag order limits Trump's speech out of court, not on the stand. He chose not to testify. What he says it of court is irrelevant to his defense. So no appeal on that front.

(Had he chosen to testify, the rules of evidence would likely have excluded most of what the gag order covered . . But to appeal testimony excluded by the rules of evidence (that was incidentally part of the gag order), he would have had to have taken the stand, tried to make comments, had them excluded by the judge because they were irrelevant, and proffered the content to preserve his right to appeal.)

[unblock]

12. You know that and I know that. But Donnie has already stated that he'll appeal on those grounds.

Of course, he lies about everything, so whether that's included in the appeal, we shall see. As noted, his grounds for appeal are mostly baseless, sometimes ridiculously so.

But he'll appeal on as many grounds as he can dream up, and who knows, maybe one will stick. That's his m.o.

[H2O Man]

14. What he says

is rarely true.

An error in the trial would be grounds to appeal in the NYS court systm. An issue of constitutional rights could eventually be filed in federal court. But one of his lies can only be tried in his head.

[unblock]

17. Slight edit, an error at trial would be grounds for a *successful* appeal

Donnie will instruct his lawyers to include many arguments that will not be successful.

[H2O Man]

27. Right.

Appeals are funny things. It's a specialty, and generally requires an attorney who specializes in that area. To bring one on, especially for federal court, tends to be expensive. I am unaware of any issue that has a chance in the state courts. There are a couple that could be argued in federal court, though I do not think the verdict could be reversed on legal grounds. But the felon has fans on the Supreme Court who are dishonest and disgraceful.

[Ms. Toad]

15. His counsel is in charge of legal strategy.

There are plenty of court cases establishing that. So if he appeals on the basis of something which has no basis in existing law, or a reasonable extension thereof, he risks being sanctioned. And all the pointing to what his client wanted won't save him. I haven't seen any evidence he is that cavalier about his legal obligations to the court.

[unblock]

18. He did risk contempt in talking to the jury about "sending him to prison"

So he is willing to push the envelope....

[Ms. Toad]

20. That was a calculated risk, which I've commented on before.

He colored within the lines for the entirety of his close, until the very end. I'm certain both being well behaved, so as to draw no earlier objections, and the timing, hoping to avoid an interruptive objection, were deliberate so that he could plant that seed in the jury's mind with minimal risk.

A single comment, in the heat of closing arguments is viewed very differently than a carefully drafted and reviewed appellate brief. The former might be an accidental outburst; the latter would demonstrably be a carefully thought out strategy.

I'm not at all surprised, based on everything I've seen from him, that he made the prohibited comment - and, as I said earlier- I believe it was carefully planned. I would be extremely surprised to see as a basis for appeal that the gag order prevented him from putting on a proper defense.

[unblock]

21. Fair points. We'll see. In the end it doesn't really matter because that argument will go nowhere anyway.

[Ms. Toad]

22. Agreed. n/t

[Ocelot II]

23. True. But you can bet that the brief will also be full of all sorts of extraneous crap

about how the prosecution was politically-motivated, the judge was unfair and biased and mean and an immigrant and a Democrat, and his daughter is a Democrat, and it was unfair and Michael Cohen shouldn't have been allowed to testify because he's a liar and blah blah blah, because Trump insists on that sort of nonsense - we've seen it in almost all of his other court filings. His lawyers throw it in because he insists on it. Of course, it detracts from any legitimate arguments that they might offer. I wonder if he'll hire a different lawyer for the appeal. I wonder if he's pissed off at Blanche for not saving his orange ass. I would not want to be Blanche right now.

[Ms. Toad]

24. Agreed as to extraneous crap.

I just don't believe Blanche would base an entire claimed error on legal nonsense.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the gag order thrown in somewhere, just not as the basis for not being able to put in a proper defense.

[Ocelot II]

26. No, he'll come up with something that could at least be argued with a straight face,

assuming he handles the appeal. That Sisyphean rock might be turned over to some other unlucky lawyer, for his sins.

[NanaCat]

29. My understanding of appellate lawyers

Is that they are a different breed of lawyer, and less inclined to take on appellants with dubious or flimsy cases.

Seems like he would have to call upon one of those shyster vexatious litigant groups like ACLJ or Judicial Watch to get someone skeevy enough to move his case up the appeal chain.

[Ocelot II]

31. Yes, it's a whole different way of thinking about a case.

You aren't trying to persuade a jury to think about the facts in a certain way; you are trying to persuade a group of judges that the trial judge made an error in applying the law that could have affected the outcome of the case. So the sort of salesmanship that's used in a jury trial doesn't have a place in an appeal. So appellate lawyers tend to be more nerdily and cold-bloodly intellectual and able to draw fine distinctions between sometimes obscure legal concepts. A good trial lawyer might not be a good appellate lawyer, and vice-versa.

[Blue Idaho]

30. What is dumbo's track record on appeals so far?

0/247?