Posted on 03/08/2024 8:38:59 AM PST by thegagline
How do you get Trump to defame you? Asking for a friend.
“There may also be a federal ex post facto law challenge. The state retroactively changed the statute of limitations on these suits.”
The change in the statute of limitations applied only to her claim of sexual assault. She also claimed defamation, based on Trump’s recent statements. Those claims were timely, based on the previously established statute of limitations.
The distinction is important because this second judgment, the much bigger one, is entirely for defamation (the first judgment partially so). If a federal court takes the drastic step of nullifying a state law, it would reduce the first judgment from $5 million to $3 million. There would be no effect on the second judgment. Trump would still owe upwards of $80 million.
“Can you sue judges for their findings?”
No. Absolute immunity.
Appeal bond is paid to the court or a third party…In addition to an appeal bond premium, applicants must put up collateral worth 100% of the bond amount to qualify for an appeal bond. This collateral is put up with a surety company…
In this case, Trump's bond is guaranteed by the insurance giant Chubb.
The bond company will typically charge 10-20% to insure payment. Trump would get most of the money back if he wins the appeal.
The bond acts as security to satisfy, at least in part, the original judgment.
The article is about Trump’s appeal. As I said, the bond money referenced in the article is not Carroll’s.
I know. You are correct. I apologize.
No apologies needed! No biggie.
Trump was not allowed to enter exculpatory evidence IIRC
That’s how Max Cherry, of Cherry Bail Bonds did it in the Film ‘Jackie Brown’. (Actor was Robert Forster, among many other notable star performers).
Since the findings of the first trial were not allowed to be disputed, the second trial would need to be reheard.
“Who keeps 10%?”
the Federal Insurance Company, which has offices in Virginia and New Jersey,
“Trump was not allowed to enter exculpatory evidence IIRC”
He was allowed to enter exculpatory evidence at the first trial. The best such evidence would have been his own sworn testimony that this incident never happened.
Unfortunately, on advice of his then attorney, Trump didn’t testify at all. The jury heard only Carroll’s side so it found in her favor.
At the second trial, the judge followed the principle that a jury verdict against a party is binding on that party in later cases. Courts don’t like to re-litigate issues, so the defense strategic mistake at the first trial couldn’t be corrected.
“Since the findings of the first trial were not allowed to be disputed, the second trial would need to be reheard.”
No, that’s not how it works. The applicable legal principle is called collateral estoppel. At the first trial, Trump had a full opportunity to dispute Carroll’s allegations. He doesn’t get a second bite at the apple. The jury at the second trial was instructed that the findings of the first jury (i.e., Trump did commit sexual assault) were binding.
Freepers don’t like it but that decision by Judge Kaplan was CORRECT on the law. An appeal on that basis will fail.
Trump’s best argument on appeal is that the huge verdict at the second trial was excessive and should be reduced. He’ll still owe Carroll millions but, he can hope, a lot less than he owes now. The judgments won’t be wiped out entirely.
Is this doesn’t fit the meaning of EXTORTION, nothing else does.
I was thinking financial rape followed by damnatio memoriae
The appeals on the first case will affect the results of the second.
“The appeals on the first case will affect the results of the second.”
That will be true IF the judgment from the first case is set aside. As I’ve said elsewhere, though, I doubt that it will be.
Everyone on FR keeps pounding on the evidence that favored Trump (notably the reasons to question Carroll’s credibility). The appellate court, however, will ask whether there was some evidence that favored Carroll. There was. There was Carroll’s sworn testimony, plus the negative inference the jury could draw from Trump’s failure to offer his own sworn testimony.
On that record, appellate judges are very likely to honor the jury verdict. Even if the judges think the evidence the other way is, on balance, stronger, they won’t substitute their opinion for that of the jury. When there’s evidence both ways, the jury gets to decide. That’s why we have juries. They render verdicts, not advisory opinions.
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.