Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Box Ox" data-source="post: 5816205" data-attributes="member: 48469">This is interesting.&quot;Let me ruin the suspense for everyone. Trump doesn&#039;t have an appeal. I know the talking heads on TV (who have never tried a case or appealed a jury verdict) have to mention it. Here&#039;s why it isn&#039;t going to fly. To have a meritorious appeal, you have to preserve a reversible error at the trial level. This is why you hire competent counsel. You need someone who actually knows the rules of evidence and procedure. Alina Habba had no clue what was occurring throughout the trial. She not only failed to preserve any remote grounds for appeal, like a maroon, she repeatedly and unintentionally waived them over and over. For example, she kept saying &quot;no objection&quot; as exhibits were entered into evidence. It appeared to me that she was saying that because she that&#039;s something she had heard real lawyers say before. Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, what she was doing over and over was waiving his ability to appeal over those evidentiary issues. Because she is a maroon who would rather *play* lawyer than do the research to *be* a lawyer. There&#039;s no appeal here. And because people have asked me in the past, no, there is no such thing as an incompetent counsel defense in civil cases. That&#039;s for criminal matters.Take this verdict to the bank.&quot;[MEDIA=twitter]1751024486495699067[/MEDIA]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Box Ox, post: 5816205, member: 48469"] This is interesting. "Let me ruin the suspense for everyone. Trump doesn't have an appeal. I know the talking heads on TV (who have never tried a case or appealed a jury verdict) have to mention it. Here's why it isn't going to fly. To have a meritorious appeal, you have to preserve a reversible error at the trial level. This is why you hire competent counsel. You need someone who actually knows the rules of evidence and procedure. Alina Habba had no clue what was occurring throughout the trial. She not only failed to preserve any remote grounds for appeal, like a maroon, she repeatedly and unintentionally waived them over and over. For example, she kept saying "no objection" as exhibits were entered into evidence. It appeared to me that she was saying that because she that's something she had heard real lawyers say before. Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, what she was doing over and over was waiving his ability to appeal over those evidentiary issues. Because she is a maroon who would rather *play* lawyer than do the research to *be* a lawyer. There's no appeal here. And because people have asked me in the past, no, there is no such thing as an incompetent counsel defense in civil cases. That's for criminal matters. Take this verdict to the bank." [MEDIA=twitter]1751024486495699067[/MEDIA] [/QUOTE]

Verification