Something I've been wondering about, due to the disparity of conclusions reached between different news outlets, is what is the remedy if it is determined that inadmissible evidence (via presidential immunity) was introduced at trial? Some pundits were discussing about determining if the admitted evidence was probative in relation to reversing the verdict and removing the indictment. However, I had thought, and this probably because IANAL, that if evidence was introduced at trial that was inadmissible via immunity, then a mistrial should have been declared (or verdict tossed since the trial concluded).

Thank in advance for explanations on this confusing topic (made especially confusing by conflicting pundit conclusions).

txags92 said:

---

He keeps trying to say the case has been "taken up" by the court, but there is no evidence that has happened. He has filed it with the court and it will almost certainly be tossed for lack of standing as soon as it is considered.

---

Yeah, I just hope anyone who has donated to that nonsense gets their money back when its dismissed with prejudice, but I'm sure they won't and he'll try to raise more money appealing it to the Supreme Court.

SwigAg11 said:

---

Something I've been wondering about, due to the disparity of conclusions reached between different news outlets, is what is the remedy if it is determined that inadmissible evidence (via presidential immunity) was introduced at trial? Some pundits were discussing about determining if the admitted evidence was probative in relation to reversing the verdict and removing the indictment. However, I had thought, and this probably because IANAL, that if evidence was introduced at trial that was inadmissible via immunity, then a mistrial should have been declared (or verdict tossed since the trial concluded).

Thank in advance for explanations on this confusing topic (made especially confusing by conflicting pundit conclusions).

---

64,000 dollar questions.

SwigAg11 said:

---

Something I've been wondering about, due to the disparity of conclusions reached between different news outlets, is what is the remedy if it is determined that inadmissible evidence (via presidential immunity) was introduced at trial? Some pundits were discussing about determining if the admitted evidence was probative in relation to reversing the verdict and removing the indictment. However, I had thought, and this probably because IANAL, that if evidence was introduced at trial that was inadmissible via immunity, then a mistrial should have been declared (or verdict tossed since the trial concluded).

Thank in advance for explanations on this confusing topic (made especially confusing by conflicting pundit conclusions).

---

Appeals courts use what's called the "harmless error" standard which means they only overturn a conviction if an error made during the trial reasonably may have prejudiced the defendant. They will look at any improperly admitted evidence and decide if the error was of sufficient magnitude.

There's a lot of nuance and detail to it, but that's the basic gist of it. The famous line is "defendants are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one."



The Hope Hicks testimony is where the action will be.

There will also be preliminary argument on whether that testimony was properly objected to by Trump's lawyers.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Something I've been wondering about, due to the disparity of conclusions reached between different news outlets, is what is the remedy if it is determined that inadmissible evidence (via presidential immunity) was introduced at trial? Some pundits were discussing about determining if the admitted evidence was probative in relation to reversing the verdict and removing the indictment. However, I had thought, and this probably because IANAL, that if evidence was introduced at trial that was inadmissible via immunity, then a mistrial should have been declared (or verdict tossed since the trial concluded).

Thank in advance for explanations on this confusing topic (made especially confusing by conflicting pundit conclusions).

---

Appeals courts use what's called the "harmless error" standard which means they only overturn a conviction if an error made during the trial reasonably may have prejudiced the defendant. They will look at any improperly admitted evidence and decide if the error was of sufficient magnitude.

There's a lot of nuance and detail to it, but that's the basic gist of it. The famous line is "defendants are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one."



The Hope Hicks testimony is where the action will be.

There will also be preliminary argument on whether that testimony was properly objected to by Trump's lawyers.

---

Since the immunity decision came in AFTER this trial, would they have been able to object on that basis?

Quote:

---

Since the immunity decision came in AFTER this trial, would they have been able to object on that basis?

---

Trump's lawyers did bring it up but Merchan swatted it down as "untimely."

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Something I've been wondering about, due to the disparity of conclusions reached between different news outlets, is what is the remedy if it is determined that inadmissible evidence (via presidential immunity) was introduced at trial? Some pundits were discussing about determining if the admitted evidence was probative in relation to reversing the verdict and removing the indictment. However, I had thought, and this probably because IANAL, that if evidence was introduced at trial that was inadmissible via immunity, then a mistrial should have been declared (or verdict tossed since the trial concluded).

Thank in advance for explanations on this confusing topic (made especially confusing by conflicting pundit conclusions).

---

Appeals courts use what's called the "harmless error" standard which means they only overturn a conviction if an error made during the trial reasonably may have prejudiced the defendant. They will look at any improperly admitted evidence and decide if the error was of sufficient magnitude.

There's a lot of nuance and detail to it, but that's the basic gist of it. The famous line is "defendants are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one."



The Hope Hicks testimony is where the action will be.

There will also be preliminary argument on whether that testimony was properly objected to by Trump's lawyers.

---

Since the immunity decision came in AFTER this trial, would they have been able to object on that basis?

---

The State's argument will be that they had filed a motion before trial asking for the evidence to be excluded due to immunity and they were actively litigating the issue in federal court in the D.C. case, so it's not like this came out of nowhere and it isn't unreasonable to expect their motion to have been timely and require that they object at trial.

It escapes me why they would not renew their objections at trial. They failed to renew several other objections that hurt them. It also escapes me why they waited 2 and half weeks after their motions in limine were due to file their motion to exclude evidence based on immunity.


I don't know how a New York court will handle this. I'm just identifying the issue.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

It escapes me why they would not renew their objections at trial. It also escapes me why they waited 2 and half weeks after their motions in limine were due to file their motion to exclude evidence based on immunity.

---

It's just possible that hiring "the best people" is not actually one of Trump's strengths

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Something I've been wondering about, due to the disparity of conclusions reached between different news outlets, is what is the remedy if it is determined that inadmissible evidence (via presidential immunity) was introduced at trial? Some pundits were discussing about determining if the admitted evidence was probative in relation to reversing the verdict and removing the indictment. However, I had thought, and this probably because IANAL, that if evidence was introduced at trial that was inadmissible via immunity, then a mistrial should have been declared (or verdict tossed since the trial concluded).

Thank in advance for explanations on this confusing topic (made especially confusing by conflicting pundit conclusions).

---

Appeals courts use what's called the "harmless error" standard which means they only overturn a conviction if an error made during the trial reasonably may have prejudiced the defendant. They will look at any improperly admitted evidence and decide if the error was of sufficient magnitude.

There's a lot of nuance and detail to it, but that's the basic gist of it. The famous line is "defendants are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one."



The Hope Hicks testimony is where the action will be.

There will also be preliminary argument on whether that testimony was properly objected to by Trump's lawyers.

---

Since the immunity decision came in AFTER this trial, would they have been able to object on that basis?

---

The State's argument will be that they had filed a motion before trial asking for the evidence to be excluded due to immunity and they were actively litigating the issue in federal court in the D.C. case, so it's not like this came out of nowhere and it isn't unreasonable to expect that they would have objected at trial.

It escapes me why they would not renew their objections at trial. It also escapes me why they waited 2 and half weeks after their motions in limine were due to file their motion to exclude evidence based on immunity.


I don't know how a New York court will handle this. I'm just identifying the issue.

---

Did they not bring this objection up at trial? Do you have a link to the transcript (I have no idea how to find that)?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Something I've been wondering about, due to the disparity of conclusions reached between different news outlets, is what is the remedy if it is determined that inadmissible evidence (via presidential immunity) was introduced at trial? Some pundits were discussing about determining if the admitted evidence was probative in relation to reversing the verdict and removing the indictment. However, I had thought, and this probably because IANAL, that if evidence was introduced at trial that was inadmissible via immunity, then a mistrial should have been declared (or verdict tossed since the trial concluded).

Thank in advance for explanations on this confusing topic (made especially confusing by conflicting pundit conclusions).

---

Appeals courts use what's called the "harmless error" standard which means they only overturn a conviction if an error made during the trial reasonably may have prejudiced the defendant. They will look at any improperly admitted evidence and decide if the error was of sufficient magnitude.

There's a lot of nuance and detail to it, but that's the basic gist of it. The famous line is "defendants are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one."



The Hope Hicks testimony is where the action will be.

There will also be preliminary argument on whether that testimony was properly objected to by Trump's lawyers.

---

Since the immunity decision came in AFTER this trial, would they have been able to object on that basis?

---

The State's argument will be that they had filed a motion before trial asking for the evidence to be excluded due to immunity and they were actively litigating the issue in federal court in the D.C. case, so it's not like this came out of nowhere and it isn't unreasonable to expect and require that they object at trial.

It escapes me why they would not renew their objections at trial. They failed to renew several other objections that hurt them. It also escapes me why they waited 2 and half weeks after their motions in limine were due to file their motion to exclude evidence based on immunity.


I don't know how a New York court will handle this. I'm just identifying the issue.

---

I strenuously object! Is that how this works?

Overruled. No, No, I STRENUOUSLY object.

Oh well in that case….

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

Something I've been wondering about, due to the disparity of conclusions reached between different news outlets, is what is the remedy if it is determined that inadmissible evidence (via presidential immunity) was introduced at trial? Some pundits were discussing about determining if the admitted evidence was probative in relation to reversing the verdict and removing the indictment. However, I had thought, and this probably because IANAL, that if evidence was introduced at trial that was inadmissible via immunity, then a mistrial should have been declared (or verdict tossed since the trial concluded).

Thank in advance for explanations on this confusing topic (made especially confusing by conflicting pundit conclusions).

---

Appeals courts use what's called the "harmless error" standard which means they only overturn a conviction if an error made during the trial reasonably may have prejudiced the defendant. They will look at any improperly admitted evidence and decide if the error was of sufficient magnitude.

There's a lot of nuance and detail to it, but that's the basic gist of it. The famous line is "defendants are entitled to a fair trial, not a perfect one."



The Hope Hicks testimony is where the action will be.

There will also be preliminary argument on whether that testimony was properly objected to by Trump's lawyers.

---

Since the immunity decision came in AFTER this trial, would they have been able to object on that basis?

---

The State's argument will be that they had filed a motion before trial asking for the evidence to be excluded due to immunity and they were actively litigating the issue in federal court in the D.C. case, so it's not like this came out of nowhere and it isn't unreasonable to expect that they would have objected at trial.

It escapes me why they would not renew their objections at trial. It also escapes me why they waited 2 and half weeks after their motions in limine were due to file their motion to exclude evidence based on immunity.


I don't know how a New York court will handle this. I'm just identifying the issue.

---

Did they not bring this objection up at trial? Do you have a link to the transcript (I have no idea how to find that)?

---

Looking back at the transcript now, it looks like they made a general objection to Hope Hicks testifying before she took the stand, so maybe they can show they covered it.

Last week. Did another thread get made? Or have we forgotten?

Trump appeals $454 million New York civil fraud judgment

Quote:

---

In their appeal Monday, Trump's attorneys repeated arguments they brought up frequently during the more than two-month-long 2023 bench trial. They claimed allegations made by New York Attorney General Letitia James were from outside the statute of limitations and revolved around deals that had "no victims and no losses."

"This appeal seeks reversal of the trial court's legally bereft decisions which ignored the undisputed facts," said Trump attorney Christopher Kise in a statement to CBS News.

Kise added that Engoron "willingly allowed a reckless, politically motivated Attorney General to meddle in lawful, private, and mutually profitable transactions."

Trump's attorneys also made a claim they've been arguing since before the trial, writing that James' office lacked standing under New York law to bring the 2022 suit against Trump and his company that led to fraud finding.

---

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/08/supreme-court-rejects-missouris-request-to-block-trumps-new-york-gag-order-sentencing/

jt2hunt said:

---

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/08/supreme-court-rejects-missouris-request-to-block-trumps-new-york-gag-order-sentencing/

---

How does Missouri have standing? Serious question from someone who doesn't understand these things

GenericAggie said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/08/supreme-court-rejects-missouris-request-to-block-trumps-new-york-gag-order-sentencing/

---

How does Missouri have standing? Serious question from someone who doesn't understand these things

---

Because they didn't have a case. If they had a valid case, the court would have thrown them out on standing.

J/k because I have no idea.

NEW: NY prosecutors' decision to defer to Merchan ramps up pressure on the judge and makes it even likelier that Trump won't face sentencing — or indeed resolution in any of his four criminal cases — before voters cast their ballots.

w/ @joshgerstein https://t.co/x4RhdFNmpP pic.twitter.com/K8IURKkYio

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 19, 2024

Confirming:

1. This wasn't a serious, or legitimate, prosecution
2. They got all the play out of it that they could and it didn't move the needle in the direction they wanted
3. If they overstep again, their grift and 'cushy' positions are directly at risk

My prediction is this, and the other lawfare, will become footnotes in history and they will work to allow all of this to die as quietly as they can.

69-days to go and Trump sentencing still hanging out there like Chekhov's Gun.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

69-days to go and Trump sentencing still hanging out there like Chekhov's Gun.

---

My take? Bragg (or more likely Colangelo) had an off the record conversation with members of the appellate court that should judgment be entered and Trump sentenced, a swift appeal would cause the case to be tossed and vacated. Too much reversible error throughout the trial.

But the case is not ripe for a full appeal until the judgment is entered as a final order. Holding it in limbo prevents such a reversal.

Essentially proving what we knew....keep him defending, cost him millions, keep him off the campaign trail, and give talking points the lemmings would consume and repeat.

There are so many things wrong with our country and government it would take decades to fix....assuming you could even get the American people to understand. It is all just overwhelming.

Quote:

---

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in a new interview said she is "prepared as anyone can be" for the possibility that this year's presidential election could end up before the high court.

"I think there are legal issues that arise out of the political process," Jackson said during an interview with CBS's Norah O'Donnell.

---

After punting on election cases and egregious use of the justice system to persecute political opponents for almost 4-years ...

Katanji announces that the USSC is ready as it'll ever be to take on Trump if the need arises.

Wise Latina rested. Break-room stocked. Candy saucers topped off with Andes mints.

After 4-years of failing to do their duty, now they ready.

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

69-days to go and Trump sentencing still hanging out there like Chekhov's Gun.

---

My take? Bragg (or more likely Colangelo) had an off the record conversation with members of the appellate court that should judgment be entered and Trump sentenced, a swift appeal would cause the case to be tossed and vacated. Too much reversible error throughout the trial.

But the case is not ripe for a full appeal until the judgment is entered as a final order. Holding it in limbo prevents such a reversal.

---

Trump's team asked for a delay in sentencing and for the case to be adjourned until after the election. Trump's team wants this stuck in limbo

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25045300-20240814-letter-to-justice-merchan-re-sentencing-adjournment?responsive=1&title=1

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

69-days to go and Trump sentencing still hanging out there like Chekhov's Gun.

---

My take? Bragg (or more likely Colangelo) had an off the record conversation with members of the appellate court that should judgment be entered and Trump sentenced, a swift appeal would cause the case to be tossed and vacated. Too much reversible error throughout the trial.

But the case is not ripe for a full appeal until the judgment is entered as a final order. Holding it in limbo prevents such a reversal.

---

Trump's team asked for a delay in sentencing and for the case to be adjourned until after the election. Trump's team wants this stuck in limbo

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25045300-20240814-letter-to-justice-merchan-re-sentencing-adjournment?responsive=1&title=1

---

How often has Bragg's team just accepted what Trump requested (which they did)?

The prosecution has pushed back on pretty much every single request of Trump's...unless it was extremely trivial.

The judgement and sentencing is not trivial.

I'm assuming there's the slimmest possibility (practically 0% chance) that Merchan could just vacate the conviction and indictment?

SwigAg11 said:

---

I'm assuming there's the slimmest possibility (practically 0% chance) that Merchan could just vacate the conviction and indictment?

---

Yes there is. But he won't. Leave it in limbo until after the election. Trump wins? It goes away. Trump loses? Riker's Island.

Jim Jordan's team serving Merchan's daughter and her boss subpoenas yesterday may be turning up the wick on Merchan just standing pat for the meantime.

NEW: Trump has filed a second notice of removal of the Manhattan DA's hush money case to federal court in what reads like a bid to prevent any sentencing hearing from going forward. 1/

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) August 30, 2024

Trump going to Rikers!! Oh no!

SCOOP:

🚨🚨🚨

A Federal law enforcement agent has just told me that the New York State National Guard @NationalGuardNY has started staging guardsmen in hotels around the NYC courthouse where President Trump is going to be sentenced on September 18th, as they are expecting that…

— Laura Loomer (@LauraLoomer) August 30, 2024

People actually believe this clown?

I try to resist the urge to get real concerned (or rather, any at all) when Laura starts posting multiple exclamation points.

Ag with kids said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

69-days to go and Trump sentencing still hanging out there like Chekhov's Gun.

---

My take? Bragg (or more likely Colangelo) had an off the record conversation with members of the appellate court that should judgment be entered and Trump sentenced, a swift appeal would cause the case to be tossed and vacated. Too much reversible error throughout the trial.

But the case is not ripe for a full appeal until the judgment is entered as a final order. Holding it in limbo prevents such a reversal.

---

Trump's team asked for a delay in sentencing and for the case to be adjourned until after the election. Trump's team wants this stuck in limbo

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25045300-20240814-letter-to-justice-merchan-re-sentencing-adjournment?responsive=1&title=1

---

How often has Bragg's team just accepted what Trump requested (which they did)?

The prosecution has pushed back on pretty much every single request of Trump's...unless it was extremely trivial.

The judgement and sentencing is not trivial.

---

Bragg's response didn't accept what Trump requested. Bragg's response was Trump's arguments have little to no merit and we defer to the Court to decide how to set a schedule.

Bragg doesn't oppose an adjournment of some length so that an Appellate Court would have enough time to consider whether to stay the sentencing after an immediate appeal on immunity, that's true and that's the right thing to do (Bragg does question whether Trump has the right to appeal at all before sentencing), but Trump's request was that that "enough time" is some point after the election. Bragg doesn't agree to that.

At any rate, my point was no one should be understanding this through the conspiratorial lens that the appellate court is telling people it'll blow up the case so the state needs it to be adjourned because Trump's team clearly doesn't believe that.

Judge Alvin Hellerstein first holds that federal courts' limited jurisdiction does not allow him to take over a case because of Merchan's alleged bias. 2/

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) September 3, 2024

Then, he considers whether the Supreme Court's immunity ruling justifies removal. And he concludes, "Nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion affects my earlier conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority." FIN.

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) September 3, 2024

They wanted a exploding headshot for the whole world to see but will have to settle for a cuffed Trump heading to prison.


This is the world we live in.

Only surprise there is the fast turnaround from motion to order denying over a holiday weekend.

This crap is getting old.

Merchan ruling today!

According to an 8/19/24 email just filed now in the 2d Cir., Justice Merchan is aiming to decide by TODAY whether to postpone Trump's NY sentencing till after the election. The People have taken no position on Trump's motion.
/1 pic.twitter.com/6Ob3eJa10c

— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) September 5, 2024