- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,357
- Reactions
- 7,232
The observation has made made many times but bears repeating - Judge Engeron's exceptionally clear, plain language case summary is a masterpiece of legal craft.
The Judge was well aware that Donald Trump would appeal his judgement. In that context he constructed a summary that explained and showed evidence for all the conclusions of liability he found.
I came across this article which goes well into the weeds on the judgement.
ROAD TO NOWHERE
The massive bank fraud judgment issued against Trump in New York was written in a very particular way that could quickly disappoint Trump.
Published Feb. 29, 2024 8:24PM EST
exclusive
Donald Trump is working hard to get an appeal of the $464 million judgment levied against him for committing bank fraud. But if he does fork over the cash and get that appeal, he may find that it doesn’t take the higher courts long to swat it down.
That’s because the 92-page opinion issued by New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur F. Engoron was tailor-made to withstand appeal—and give the state’s First Judicial Department a roadmap to uphold the decision.
“The reason why this opinion is so long and so specific is to emphasize to the appellate court how much care the judge took in issuing this decision,” said Jennifer B. Arlin, an expert on appeals who teaches legal writing at Brooklyn Law School.
A review of the judgment demonstrates that it was structured in an unusual format, one that dedicates a disproportionate amount of space to analyzing the facts presented during the 11-week trial—and provides a simple guide for an appellate court to quickly examine it, understand the judge’s reasoning process, and come to a swift decision.
“It's so well laid out that it says, ‘Go ahead—challenge me,’” said Diane Peress, a former prosecutor who now teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “I think it's very smartly done, because it really shows that he didn’t just say, ‘Hey, half a billion dollars, whatever.’ It shows that he based it on fact, on law.”
All court orders lay out what are called “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law,” a combination that explains how and why a judge issued a decision. For example, Colorado Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s “findings of fact” took up exactly a third of her November order that concluded Trump engaged in insurrection but should be kept on the 2024 ballot—an order that was later overturned and is now under consideration by the Supreme Court.
By contrast, Engoron’s “findings of fact” about Trump’s bank fraud stretch on for 68 pages, taking up more than two-thirds of this opinion. In that space, the court lists 39 witnesses, explaining their testimony in detail and even offering acerbic commentary about their credibility. Engoron’s order particularly tears apart the integrity of former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney, noting how “he obfuscated and equivocated at length before finally conceding” details about his role in the ploy to shed blame over to outside accountants for lying to banks. The judge’s decision also notes how a tenured professor at New York University clocked $877,500 to offer expert testimony about financial accounting—only to ignore “numerous significant errors” in Trump’s personal financial statements, repeating the “unpersuasive” performance he gave at another major trial involving the oil giant Exxon Mobil.
The Judge was well aware that Donald Trump would appeal his judgement. In that context he constructed a summary that explained and showed evidence for all the conclusions of liability he found.
I came across this article which goes well into the weeds on the judgement.
Trump’s Appeal Could Be Short-Lived for a Simple Reason
ROAD TO NOWHERE
The massive bank fraud judgment issued against Trump in New York was written in a very particular way that could quickly disappoint Trump.
Jose Pagliery
Political Investigations ReporterPublished Feb. 29, 2024 8:24PM EST
exclusive
Photo Illustration by Kelly Caminero / The Daily Beast / Getty
Donald Trump is working hard to get an appeal of the $464 million judgment levied against him for committing bank fraud. But if he does fork over the cash and get that appeal, he may find that it doesn’t take the higher courts long to swat it down.
That’s because the 92-page opinion issued by New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur F. Engoron was tailor-made to withstand appeal—and give the state’s First Judicial Department a roadmap to uphold the decision.
“The reason why this opinion is so long and so specific is to emphasize to the appellate court how much care the judge took in issuing this decision,” said Jennifer B. Arlin, an expert on appeals who teaches legal writing at Brooklyn Law School.
A review of the judgment demonstrates that it was structured in an unusual format, one that dedicates a disproportionate amount of space to analyzing the facts presented during the 11-week trial—and provides a simple guide for an appellate court to quickly examine it, understand the judge’s reasoning process, and come to a swift decision.
“It's so well laid out that it says, ‘Go ahead—challenge me,’” said Diane Peress, a former prosecutor who now teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “I think it's very smartly done, because it really shows that he didn’t just say, ‘Hey, half a billion dollars, whatever.’ It shows that he based it on fact, on law.”
All court orders lay out what are called “findings of fact” and “conclusions of law,” a combination that explains how and why a judge issued a decision. For example, Colorado Judge Sarah B. Wallace’s “findings of fact” took up exactly a third of her November order that concluded Trump engaged in insurrection but should be kept on the 2024 ballot—an order that was later overturned and is now under consideration by the Supreme Court.
By contrast, Engoron’s “findings of fact” about Trump’s bank fraud stretch on for 68 pages, taking up more than two-thirds of this opinion. In that space, the court lists 39 witnesses, explaining their testimony in detail and even offering acerbic commentary about their credibility. Engoron’s order particularly tears apart the integrity of former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney, noting how “he obfuscated and equivocated at length before finally conceding” details about his role in the ploy to shed blame over to outside accountants for lying to banks. The judge’s decision also notes how a tenured professor at New York University clocked $877,500 to offer expert testimony about financial accounting—only to ignore “numerous significant errors” in Trump’s personal financial statements, repeating the “unpersuasive” performance he gave at another major trial involving the oil giant Exxon Mobil.
Trump’s Appeal Could Be Short-Lived for a Simple Reason
The massive bank fraud judgment issued against Trump in New York was written in a very particular way that could quickly disappoint Trump.
www.thedailybeast.com
