One attorneys perspective. Appears Trump hired another winner.
Brian Manookian
@BrianManookian
Let me ruin the suspense for everyone. Trump doesn't have an appeal.I know the talking heads on TV (who have never tried a case or appealed a jury verdict) have to mention it. Here's why it isn't going to fly. To have a meritorious appeal, you have to preserve a reversible error at the trial level. This is why you hire competent counsel. You need someone who actually knows the rules of evidence and procedure.Alina Habba had no clue what was occurring throughout the trial. She not only failed to preserve any remote grounds for appeal, like a moron, she repeatedly and unintentionally waived them over and over.For example, she kept saying "no objection" as exhibits were entered into evidence.It appeared to me that she was saying that because she that's something she had heard real lawyers say before. Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, what she was doing over and over was waiving his ability to appeal over those evidentiary issues. Because she is a moron who would rather *play* lawyer than do the research to *be* a lawyer. There's no appeal here. And because people have asked me in the past, no, there is no such thing as an incompetent counsel defense in civil cases. That's for criminal matters. Take this verdict to the bank.
4:29 PM · Jan 26, 2024
·
2.7M
Views
@BrianManookian
To even have the privilege of filing an appeal, Trump would have to post a bond in excess of the full amount of the verdict.Why? Trump isn't the first deadbeat defendant. Our legal system is used to these guys. If you want to appeal, you have to put up the money in cash.If he actually does that (he won't) all it means is that when his appeal is summarily rejected, E. Jean gets her cash straight out of the court's escrow account instead of having to chase Trump for it.It's another reason Trump is going to make a lot of noise about appealing, but not do anything substantive.His only real play here is to go to E. Jean's lawyers and try to negotiate a reduced settlement. That is what happens in 99 percent of these situations. Plaintiff takes 75 cents on the dollar to avoid the expense and delay of trying to collect. Defendant gets a 25 percent discount. I doubt E. Jean accepts that here, including because post-judgment interest is running at 10 percent. That's $22,739 a day on $83M.
8:21 PM · Jan 26, 2024
·
315.9K
Views
@BrianManookian
Finally, for those holding out hope of an appeal based on an "excessive” award, that doesn't mean what you think it means. Let’s learn to evaluate this according to the actual rules that apply to damages and how they’re analyzed on appeal…The $83M consists of two separate awards: compensatory damages and punitive damages.Compensatory damages are exactly what they sound like. They're designed to make the victim whole. It's a calculation of what you lost as a result of the wrongful conduct. If someone hits my car at a red light, my compensatory damages would include things like the cost to repair my car, my medical bills, and any pay I missed from being out of work. Again, it's designed to compensate me and place me back in the same position as if the wreck never occurred.Punitive damages are also exactly what they sound like. They are designed to punish the wrongdoer. Not all cases involve punitive damages. In fact, most don’t. The majority of the time there’s no need to additionally punish the wrongdoer. Using the example above, maybe the driver hit my car because they swerved to avoid a child. There’s no bad behavior there that needs to be deterred in the future.Punitive damages are therefore, by their nature, awarded after and beyond all of the money necessary to make the victim whole. That is because punitive damages are not about the victim, they are entirely about the wrongdoer.The purpose of punitive damages is to deter and discourage the same conduct in the future. They are designed to protect the rest of society from the same type of conduct by the wrongdoer by teaching the wrongdoer that there will be real consequences.This is where "excessive award" does not simply mean "big number." Punitive damages are calculated by looking at the wrongdoer's net worth and deciding how much money is necessary to teach them a lesson.A $10k punitive damages award might be more than enough to chasten your average citizen. That's a decent chunk of change. But it isn't enough to deter, for example, a large corporation like Exxon or Boeing. Because of that, the jury is called upon to make a factual determination as to what amount is necessary to teach THIS PARTICULAR DEFENDANT a lesson.This is why E. Jean's lawyers did such a masterful job of using Trump's own boasts about his wealth against him. They created a factual record within the transcript that Trump has huge wealth, according to his own statements, and that to deter him, a commensurate punitive award was necessary.As a young lawyer, I listened to a brilliant trial lawyer give her closing argument asking for a big punitive damages award. She explained this concept of proportionality to the jury using the Bible parable about the poor woman who had placed her last two little coins in the donation tray, and the rich man who made a show of filling the tray with gold. The poor woman had given more because the gold was such a puny percentage of the rich man's wealth.If I have a net worth of $100k then $10k is a reasonable punitive award. If Trump is worth billions as he claims, $83M is a far smaller percentage of his total net worth. Importantly, it's not remotely excessive based upon the factual record in evidence.And the factual record in evidence is all that matters because that is what is examined during any appeal. Ms. Habba failed to create any type of evidentiary record rebutting the evidence presented by E. Jean's lawyers about Trump's net worth. She didn’t even attempt to, for example, deny that such a sum was out of line with Trump’s wealth.The jury then evaluated the actual evidence presented to them and determined that $83M was a fair and reasonable amount necessary to deter someone with billions. This type of finding of fact by the jury is given high deference on appeal because they were the individuals present in the courtroom to hear and personally evaluate witnesses and evidence.A large punitive award is not "excessive" because it is large. It becomes "excessive" if it is completely out of proportion to the wealth of the individual or the compensatory award.The ratio here is squarely within acceptable limits, and, frankly, even if it wasn't, Ms. Habba failed to create any countervailing record (generally, that's done by putting the Defendant on the stand and letting them testify to their lack of wealth; obviously Trump was never going to do that).This is all very basic, non-controversial stuff in the legal world.But now next time you hear someone spout off about "appeals" or "excessive" awards, you'll know the actual rules of the game.
www.ksl.com
