Posted on 01/31/2024 1:09:45 PM PST by thegagline
I don’t believe that is the case. These lookback laws were submitted as bills for a few years prior. The child survivor’s act was the first one to pass.
I suspect from his past choices, that’s number one on his list
Habba was hubba hubba
It was a fixed show trial. Judge needs life in prison as a warning.
Appellate counsel is common and Habbida is now a witness as many of the subjects arise from disputes between lawyer & biased judge.
Good idea, but Habba may have screwed things up beyond repair.
Trial counsel must generally raise and preserve the issues for appeal. Failure to do so can result in waiver.
Agreed…
Are you crazy? The result was predetermined. There was literally nothing his lawyer could do. Except possibly more forcefully demand that he gets thrown off the case. But he constantly threatened her with jail.
No qualified trial lawyer will handle an appeal
Appellate law is a very specialized subset of legal practice and any trial lawyer who does not hand off the case to an appellate specialist when the case goes to appeal is borderline commiting malpractice - regardless of whether the client won or lost the case.
I was involved in a legal action and we won big
The jerk that sued appealed.
Our lawyer was one of the best in the business but he insisted that he step aside and we retain a top appellate specialist to handle the appeal
H the jerks lawyer used the same shyster that lost the case to handle the appeal
They lost even bigger
No qualified litigator will continue as lead on appeal - win or lose. Appellate law is a very specialized subset of litigation and it's totally different than trial litigation.
It is also critical that a new lawyer without the baggage of having tried the case take over to view the case record with a dispassionate appellate perspective to get best results.
And yes, the law that they passed was specifically targeted to get Trump
This makes it both an ex post facto law and a bill of attainder specifically targeting Donald Trump
The statutes of limitations had already expired to file this case and Carroll had lost her standing to sue decades ago due to being time barred by statutes of limitation.
Once expired, the statutes of limitation on case cannot be extended because we any law that attempts to extend expired statutes of limitation constitute an unconstitutional expose facto law.
It is within the law to extend statutes of limitation but these extensions will only be applicable to cases where the pre existing statutes of limitation have not already expired.
In Trumps case, the pre existing time limits had long since expired and it's unconstitutional to write legislation to try to resurrect them. I really don’t see how this case ever even went to trial, unless it’s some sort of an administrative lawcourt
Some do. Throughout my career I have. But I agree, it is somewhat rare.
That would mean the cut off would be in 2003 - a decade after E Jean originally claimed and E Jean turned 55 over 20 years ago
Carrol lis on record of saying that the event happened in the early 1990s. She no doubt choose this time frame for two reasons first, in the early 1990s she would have been under 50 years of age and it's harder for the public to believe a guy like Donald Trump would sexually assault a senior citizen and second, it was so long ago it would be hard to disprove
They are pretty reluctant even to work cases that are on the edges of their specialty, much less handle appeals
She’s a real estate lawyer, fer Christ’s sake!
I suppose I did put it too gently. My specialty until my retirement was as an appellate attorney. If this were a criminal case, he might be able to argue ineffectiveness of counsel. In this civil setting, what Trump can argue is extremely limited and his chances of success extremely low. Even the “ties” between the judge and plaintiff’s counsel, which happens all the time, was easily discoverable with amy due diligence.
But no doubt the enemy media, and Never Trumpers, will keep trying to make more out of it.
Agreed. Any argument regarding ties between the Judge and plaintiff’s counsel is untimely and untenable. Recusals/disqualifications are denied even where counsel was a former law clerk for the judge. (At least in the Ninth Circuit where I last researched this issue)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.