General Question

janbb's avatar

Aren't appeals supposed to be made after the trial has occurred?

Asked by janbb (62857points) December 22nd, 2023
22 responses
“Great Question” (4points)

The Supreme Court has rejected Jack Smith’s request for them to rule on Presidential immunity for Trump so now he can appeal and get the trial in DC delayed? i don’t understand how that works. i thought the judge gets to set the trial date and after it concludes, appeals can be made. What am I missing here?

Topics: ,
Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0

Answers

LadyMarissa's avatar

45 loaded the Supreme Court & they are afraid of him!!!

janbb's avatar

I’m not asking why the Supreme Court chose to reject this. I’m asking on what grounds an appeal can be made prior to a trial.

zenvelo's avatar

Trump moved to dismiss the charges claiming immunity. The judge ruled against him saying he was not immune. Trump appealed that ruling. Prosecutor asked Supremes to rule on that appeal because it will end up at the SCOTUS no matter what the appeals court says. SCOTUS said no, let the appeals court rule.

janbb's avatar

@zenvelo Boy, the bastard gets away with everything.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@janbb So far . . . he is running scared !
Face it he paid an “expert witness” almost a million dollars to say GAAP https://www.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh241/files/media/document/GAAP_Guide_Sheet_508.pdf doesn’t apply to the Tangerine TURD . . . !

Judge Engoron,didn’t buy it !

kritiper's avatar

Generally speaking, yes. But the question of Trump’s ability to be free of criminal guilt is a question that needs to be answered by the higher court so as not to be a point of befuddlement to the lower court.

seawulf575's avatar

An appeal can be made to a ruling by the Judge. In this case, Judge Chutkan ruled that Trump did not have presidential immunity when he took the actions he is accused of taking. He was still POTUS at the time of all the actions. The Presidential Immunity would preclude him from any lawsuits for actions taken while POTUS. So Trump appealed that ruling. The issue is whether presidential immunity applies in this case.

Now it gets squirrelly. Trump didn’t appeal to the SCOTUS…Smith did. Trump appealed to the appellate court as is normal for appeals. Smith didn’t want to wait for the appeals process to work its way through. He is pushing a timeline that would impact Trump’s ability to run for POTUS again. It is all political. If the appeal went the normal course, the appeals court would take time for the case to get up to the top of the pile, time for them to review all the materials pertinent to the case, time to mull it over and time to make a ruling. All that could take months. Because of the nature of the appeal, the entire case is on hold until it is ruled on and the appeal is settled. If the appeals court rules in Trump’s favor the case is tossed out unless Smith wants to appeal to the SCOTUS. If the appeals court rules in Smith’s favor the case can continue, picking up where it left off but Smith’s accelerated timeline is still screwed. Also if they rule in Smith’s favor then Trump can appeal to the SCOTUS which will further delay things.

So Smith went right to the SCOTUS in an effort to speed things along. Unfortunately for him, the SCOTUS usually relies heavily on the ruling of the Appellate court when looking at the issue. They look at the issue, they look at the how and why the appellate court ruled a certain way and then they review and interpret the law. Without the appeals being heard by a lower court, the SCOTUS is reluctant to hear the case, effectively pushing Smith back to the Appeals court process.

None of this is anything that Trump did wrong. He did exactly what any defendant would do. It was Smith that tried circumventing the process to keep a timeline that seems more and more to be designed for political reasons.

seawulf575's avatar

Another thought along the lines of this question, isn’t a ruling on a case supposed to be made after the trial has occurred and not before as it did in the NY Fraud case?

chyna's avatar

^I actually wondered that myself.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Summary Judgement was made in September against Trump and his associates @chyna
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-submitted-fraudulent-valuations-assets-secure-loans/story?id=103508205

Trial going on now is to calculate penalty and money owed to New York.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie What you are missing is that in all crimes, an accusation is made, it goes to trial, evidence is produced, the prosecution presents their case, the defense gives their case and the judgement is rendered whether by the judge (summary verdict) of by a jury. In this case The accusation was made and the judge rendered a verdict THEN started the trial. That is a violation of due process and proves what a sham this entire trial is. Even Letitia James publicly said the judge ruled before the trial began. Sorry hoss, you can keep posting this same thing like it shows Trump was guilty, but what it really shows is that he was denied due process. And since it is a civil case and not a jury trial, any effort to get it thrown out has to be approved by the judge that violated the rights. They will carry on with this trial, it will go to appeals on a civil rights violation and the entire thing will be thrown out.

zenvelo's avatar

@seawulf575 The Summary Judgment was in a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. The Rules are different, and that is how civil procedures are handled in many cases. And it is not a “civil rights ” violation.

And remember, Trump’s lawyer had the opportunity to ask for a jury trial but waived it before the trial started.

janbb's avatar

Just to be clear, this was a procedural question rather than a political one but feel free to carry on.

Entropy's avatar

You’re thinking about appealing the outcome of the trial/case. This was appealing a specific argument/ruling. Specifically Trump was asserting that as President, his immunity from prosecution extends beyond his official actions to those he undertakes on his own.

I’m disappointed the SCOTUS turned down the review. This is clearly a case of major import that the SCOTUS is meant to have jurisdiction over. What’s more, it concerns a candidate in the upcoming election meaning that if the case is unresolved due to frivolous delays, the American voters won’t have full information when they go to vote.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

isn’t a ruling on a case supposed to be made after the trial has occurred and not before as it did in the NY Fraud case?

There was a trial. Trump’s team submitted ridiculous hokum and the judge gave them all the respect they deserve.

“The defenses Donald Trump attempts to articulate in his sworn deposition are wholly without basis in law or fact,” [Judge] Engoron wrote, saying that the documents presented to the court “clearly contain fraudulent valuations that defendants used in business.”

Engoron also sanctioned Donald Trump’s lawyers for peddling “bogus arguments,” ordering five attorneys to pay $7,500 each. Christopher Kise, Michael Madaio, Clifford S. Robert, Michael Farina and Armen Morian were each ordered to pay within 30 days.

ABC News – September 26, 2023 – Judge rules Trump engaged in repeated fraud, effectively deciding central question in $250M civil trial

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Trump is TOAST !

SnipSnip's avatar

Interlocutory appeal is filed during a trial to answer a question so that the case can move forward.

interlocutory /ĭn″tər-lŏk′yə-tôr″ē/
adjective

Determining a matter during the course of a case and not part of a final decision.
“an interlocutory decree.”

American Heritage Dictionary

janbb's avatar

@SnipSnip Thanks. Yes, it’s clearer to me now.

kritiper's avatar

Well, what do you know? Trump’s lawyers have asked the higher court to answer the same question! Is he (Trump) immune?

janbb's avatar

@kritiper They’ve asked the DC Appeals Court, not the Supreme Court.

seawulf575's avatar

@janbb Yep. It was Jack Smith that tried avoiding the Appeals Court. However if the DC Appeals court rules he doesn’t have immunity, you can bet they will take it up to the SCOTUS. I personally believe that is where most of these lawsuits against Trump will end up.

kritiper's avatar

@janbb It was still a higher court. (Standard judicial procedure.)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

Mobile | Desktop


Send Feedback   

`