And that would be doubly embarrassing for him.

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.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    42·
    7 months ago

    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.

    I can see why executability matters, but this does indicate we’ve violated an architectural requirement laid out in the Constitution, Amendment 6:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    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.

    • roy_mustang76@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      4·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        1·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • FlowVoid@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          7 months ago

          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.