A New York appeals court on Monday reduced the $454 million that former President Donald Trump was required to put up while he appeals his civil fraud case. Now Trump must put up, by April 4, a mere $175 million. The trouble is, he may not get a bond for that amount, either. Should that happen, this act of judicial mercy will end up feeling to Trump like a curse.
The stay deprives Trump of the only argument on which he was gaining any traction at all—that the amount the court required him to put up was excessively high. Four hundred and fifty-four million was indeed an unusually large judgment against a private corporation or individual. (The distinction between Trump and the Trump Organization is paper-thin.) Monday’s appeals court decision doesn’t reduce that judgment, as New York State Attorney General Letitia James pointed out in a written statement. But it does dramatically reduce the amount Trump needs to turn over to the state while he pursues his appeal. It also gives us some hint that the appeals court may reduce Judge Arthur Engoron’s $454 million judgment to, well, $175 million.
Well that he gets it back if he wins is part of the grounds for the appeal.
If you force someone to liquidate and then he is found not guilty, the harm this has caused can/will outweigh the potential punishment many times over.
So see that separate from the case and the person, that cannot be right.
Don’t get me wrong, I feel no sympathy at all for defendant trump, but in general the punishment should be the punishment.
In general, the trial judge is presumed to have determined the right punishment.
There are plenty of people in jail who are appealing their punishment. If they win, they will still never get back the time they already served. That harm has been done.
You seem to be suggesting that every defendant is entitled to exhaust all their appeals before any “harm” is done, but such a system is unworkable.
That is actually a good point. Thanks.
In many states, there is some variety of recompense for that time, which obviously can’t fully repair the damage of being wrongly imprisoned but at least is better than nothing. It’s not like the courts have a time machine and can retroactively un-imprison someone.
Also, if they’re in prison, then that was a criminal trial, not a civil one. Criminal trials have a much higher standard of evidence (typically unanimous decision of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by a group of 12 jurors) as opposed to civil trials (typically a judge thinks it was at least slightly more likely than not). The “typically” is there to account for cases like plea bargains (where the accused pleas guilty to lesser charges in exchange for not being tried for the harsher charges) or where the accused requests a bench trial, that sort of thing.
In this case, the ability to appeal at all is conditional on posting a bond, the purpose of which is to prevent the defendant from essentially spending the funds that should go to damages on lawfare instead. That said, it makes a kind of sense to lower the bond, presuming the plaintiff has slow to liquidate assets that are almost certainly in excess of the value of the damages. If I were the judge, I’d also freeze any and all sale or transfer of any of his real estate until after the appeal to ensure he retains the ability to liquidate said real estate in case he loses the appeal or still cannot pay the damages with liquid assets after any reduction from the appeal.
I can see why executability matters, but this does indicate we’ve violated an architectural requirement laid out in the Constitution, Amendment 6:
This is failing right now if we can’t give the person their trial quickly.
We’re also incarcerating too many people.
Not saying I know the solution, but we need to change something to make our system more efficient. Either more courts, or fewer arrests, or both. Or refactoring some penal code to work more efficiently.
My vote would be in favor of just legalizing drugs.
I suppose I’m not understanding the argument that a relatively slow appeals process violates someone’s right to a speedy trial. By definition, if you’re appealing, you’ve already had a trial and lost.
I do think we are incarcerating too many people, but serving time while waiting on an appeal doesn’t inherently violate someone’s right to a speedy trial.
Yeah if you use that set of definitions. However they didn’t mention appeals in the constitution, and if a person’s guilt can be changed by an appeal, then it isn’t established and you’re punishing people who could be innocent.
A person’s guilt is established at the original trial.
An appeal is an attempt to prove that the original trial committed an error. Until an error is proven, the person is treated as every other guilty person.
The 6th amendment doesn’t really apply since it’s a civil suit, not a criminal trial.
The law is a machine we all pass through. We don’t want to change the machine just because an enemy is passing through it right now.
But as has been established, he shouldn’t have had this money in the first place. The fine is based on how much he over inflated the value of his property to get bigger loans. Had he not done so he may well have been bankrupt already.
True, the whole “victimless crime” stick is nonsense. Because if all the real estate world is lied together like this, the general population pays waaayyyy to much for their real estate and rent in addition to missing out on so much tax revenue.
It’s fraud. When money changed hands under false pretenses, harm’s been done. Somebody’s missing money that’s rightfully theirs.
I don’t know anything about this case. Didn’t know there was real estate stuff involved I thought this was the secret documents thing.
But that’s straightforward. Taking money that isn’t rightfully yours is not a victimless crime, in the way that owning pot is a victimless crime.
Agreed. This was the civil fraud trial, where trump and co where found liable of: fraudulently adjusting the evaluation of their holdings based on the audience. So for the IRS the valuation was low and for lenders it was high.
But in the case where banks are the victims I have trouble feeling for them.
But the appeal is what establishes if that is actually the case.
Think of it this way; someone gets the electric chair for a crime, but the appeal proves they were actually innocent. Can’t exactly unkill them can you? So you hold off the execution until after the appeals are exhausted (corporal punishment shouldn’t exist at all, for the record, I’m just using this as an easy way to illustrate my point).
I guess then why is this currently the law? If we give him this exception then remove the need for bond for everyone. Otherwise it’s just the poor that get fucked once again.