Everyone is focusing on this "trial," but this was the post-trial penalty phase.
IIRC, the judge made a summary judgement based on Letitia James' motion, so President Trump never had a fact-trial to present evidence; he only got to present witnesses for mitigating the penalty.
First, do you agree with this characterization of what happened?
And second, how does a summary judgement in lieu of a trial impact an appeal?
-PJ
“IIRC, the judge made a summary judgement based on Letitia James’ motion, so President Trump never had a fact-trial to present evidence; he only got to present witnesses for mitigating the penalty.”
Yes, that is what I understand happened too. I only gave a glance at the summary judgment order, but it was granted on liability with the trial being for damages, which is not uncommon.
Summary judgment is actually a better appeal than a jury verdict. Remember you can only appeal actions of the judge - you cannot appeal a jury’s verdict (at least not not directly, you could appeal something like a judge’s denial of a motion to throw out a jury’s verdict as unsupported by the evidence, but that’s a hard one). On a summary judgment order, the appeals court will review the case “de novo” - anew, without deference to the trial court’s findings.