According to a former federal prosecutor, there is a possibility that New York Attorney General Letitia James’ victory in the civil fraud case against former President Donald Trump could be completely overturned.
Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama, shared her thoughts on the CAFE Insider podcast that she co-hosts with Preet Bharara, another former U.S. attorney.
During a hearing on Thursday, Trump’s legal team made a strong plea to a New York appeals court, urging them to overturn or lessen the substantial $500 million fine imposed in a lawsuit filed by Democrat James. Interestingly, several judges on the court seemed receptive to the arguments, with one expressing concern over the “troubling” magnitude of the penalty.
When asked by Bharara about the likelihood of an “outright reversal versus reduction,” Vance responded by saying, “I’m not the best at predicting the outcomes of appellate courts. Based on the wording, it seems like an outright reversal is more probable than a reduction.”
Tish James had a tough day in court as she expressed her concerns, saying, “Whether they will ultimately discuss and find a compromise is uncertain. This was a challenging day for me.”
Vance has been contacted by Newsweek for additional comment.
In February, Judge Arthur Engoron made a ruling in James’ lawsuit, stating that Trump had been dishonest about his wealth on various documents provided to banks, insurers, and other parties in order to secure deals and loans.
As a result, the judge ordered Trump and the other defendants to pay penalties totaling more than $350 million. With the inclusion of interest, this amount has now grown to over $489 million.
During the arguments on Thursday, Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, expressed his view that the penalty in the case was excessively harsh. He argued that there were no direct victims as the banks involved in the transactions were content with the outcome.
During a conversation on CAFE Insider, Vance expressed his viewpoint that when appellate judges assess a case, they tend to show considerable deference towards the finder of facts’ interpretation of the facts.
Judge Engoron is the one responsible for examining the facts and making decisions in this particular case. It is important to acknowledge and respect their authority in determining what the true facts are. However, it is crucial to note that the current focus of this case is not centered around the determination of facts.
According to legal experts, the concerns raised about the verdict seem to revolve around the interpretation of statutes and legal theories. The appellate courts will now have the opportunity to reevaluate these issues and come to their own conclusions regarding the trial judge’s decision. It is clear that the outcome of the verdict is uncertain, given the arguments presented during oral arguments.
