• ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    IANAL, but Ineffective Assistance of Counsel is well known to be extremely difficult to pull off, and even more so in civil cases. And, as I understand it, Trump’s sole basis for asserting it would be that the paperwork to receive a jury trial wasn’t filed properly, which resulted in a bench trial. Given that the judge otherwise provided acceptable due process to Mr. Trump, and the case appears to have been decided on clearly established facts and relevant law, I find it hard to believe that an appeal would work here.

    Flipping to a different angle: Lawyers constantly fuck up paperwork; if the system allowed paperwork goofs to trigger new trials, it would bog courts down and provide an attack vector for attorneys to take advantage of.

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      Alex Jones’ lawyer sent his entire phone’s data to the opposing counsel, and he didn’t get a new trial. Now if that’s not a bad lawyer, I don’t know what is.

      I doubt trump will get a new trial. I’m not even sure there’s a decent lawyer left in the country that would work that idiot.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Alex Jones’ lawyer

        Was that the same one he had when he said the reason he didn’t know his own children’s ages in a custody hearing was that he ate some chili the night before and it was spicy?

        Because no matter how crazy legal cases have gotten, I don’t think I’ll ever forget that gem

      • KneeTitts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Alex Jones still hasnt paid a dime of the 1.5 billion he owes either… he never will and I doubt trump ever will pay any of these settlements either.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      I was thinking them being morons and being fined because they kept using same defense even after judge said to stop.

      • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Oh, I feel pretty confident that any lawyer would say there is less than zero chance of that forming the basis of an IAC claim.

            • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              Hell it would I bet he hate knowing homeless people took over his places. But apparently he has many so we can do both and see which he hates more.

              Quick send him a poll lets see what he thinks?

    • SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      Also NAL, but iirc part of that claim is that the trial would have gone differently otherwise. And I think we all know there was never any chance of that, except maybe not getting sanctioned.