Certainly seems so, but I’ll ask this anyway. Is it possible she was just out of her depth and tried to “bravado” her way through it, while desperately trying to recall her second year stuff in law school?
I ask because at my firm we had lots and lots of attorneys, and they were in groups that specialized in certain disciplines. We had the contract law guys who wrote up our agreements. Privacy lawyers. Insurance law attorneys. Tax attorneys. And, of course, litigators.
They were a competent lot as a rule (and probably the most ethical tribe in the firm, contrary to the ambulance chaser cliche), but I’d imagine if one of the contract attorneys had a moment of grandiosity and decided to litigate with little or no experience or prep, it would go pretty shitty.
Did you see her as a rotten attorney, ill suited to the profession in any capacity, or was she maybe in WAY over her head? I know I’m asking for speculation and that the answer could be both. I’m just wondering if she had stayed in her lane, in her low-profile niche, if she would have avoided the stench of incompetence.
Possibly. But part of the assessment of competence as a lawyer is knowing what you’re capable of handling, based on your training and experience.
I would never run a trial. I don’t have the training and experience to do so. Trial work is, in my opinion, one of the most complicated things a lawyer can do.
You need to know the relevant substantive law.
You need to know the rules of court.
You need to know the law of evidence.
You need to have the skill of examining and cross-examining witnesses.
You need to have a good sense of people, for examinations and making submissions to the judge and the jury.
And you have to have the skill of a juggler, to keep all those balls in the air at once.
I gave the example up-thread of how to lay the groundwork for asking a witness about something that was raised at the deposition. That was just one example of Habba being corrected by the judge and not being allowed to ask the question she wanted, because she didn’t lay the groundwork. Trial lawyers have to do that for every line of questioning. It has to be almost instinctive, based on lengthy experience, and intensive pre-trial prep.
Agreed. That’s what I’ve seen in a number of articles over the past few years. He has trouble getting too-notch representation because he’s uncontrollable.
I read somewhere (I really need to start taking notes because I say that a lot on here) that Habba screwed a lot of her ability to appeal based on how she responded or not to various objections made by opposing counsel.
Based on that incredibly vague remembrance, does that make any sense?
That is at least a good part of it. I have practiced in one specific area of the law for nearly all of my 37 year career. A very small number of people know that law better than I. But I would have NO IDEA how to competently represent Trump in one of his lawsuits.
But, as our northern neighbor observes, I’m smart enough to never put myself in that position. Hell, my wife and I don’t even represent ourselves in home sales/purchases. Why would we, when there are folk who have been doing little other than real estate law for the past 20-30 years?
For those who question Habba’s apparent anger, a good percentage of lawyers view feigning indignation as a significant tool in their box. You generally do not wish to mistake a lawyer’s words and demeanor for honest emotion.
It’s because it’s the only answer they have. The ones smart enough to understand the math know they don’t have an answer, so stage a fake storm-out to look “tough” for their supporters, while the ones who aren’t smart enough to understand the math get caught out and embarrassed by their ignorance, and so legitimately storm out in a huff.
It’s trying to tell the two apart that’s difficult sometimes.
This is probably a reason lawyers get a bad rap and a lot of “lawyers are slime” jokes. Not that I agree with those, just that people have a hard time understanding the “theatrical” part of the job?
I’m sure Trump will mention Carroll again. Can he avoid defamation by saying “a friend told me” or somesuch excuse?
An objection is important to procedure even if it is overruled. Once a lawyer objects to some evidence, that objection is on the record. If the lawyer disagrees with the judge’s ruling, he can then appeal that decision. If the lawyer failed to object to evidence he loses the right to appeal, even if the evidence was admitted improperly. https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/going-to-court/how-does-a-judge-rule-on-objections.html
You’ll (I have) often hear counsel say something that mentions ‘the record’ to be certain that their disagreement with the judges ruling is clear and establishes, potential, grounds for appeal on the ruling.
In a nutshell, if you don’t complain about the ruling then and there you can’t, under most circumstances, bring it up after the verdict on appeal.
ETA: responding to Puzzlegal. (This thread is fast-moving.)
He’s already had to pony up $5 million as a security bond for his appeal in the first Carroll case. As I understand it from the news, the purpose of that bond is to prevent Carroll from taking steps to enforce the judgment against his property. If he’s unsuccessful on appeal, Carroll gets that fund.
As I understand it from the news, he would need to post an $83 million bond as security to appeal this decision.
If he doesn’t post the bond, then she can start enforcing the judgment against his property. If he does post the bond but is unsuccessful on appeal, then that money goes to Carroll.
But ISNAUSL, so I’m just relying on the news items I’ve read.
As an aside, I gather that Trump’s been successful in using the courts to avoid paying contractors and other creditors because of the power imbalance. If you’re ABC General Construction, you can’t afford to keep litigating to get your money from Trump Org. It’s just not worth it, financially.
But a combined judgment of close to $90 million is huge and changes that power imbalance. That amount is worth hiring good debt collectors and enforcing, I would think.
Call me stupid, but I really don’t believe Habba was trying to win. I am pretty sure her job was to make the judgement (and there was never any anticipation that there would not be a judgement against Trump) as large as possible. That’s the only thing that makes sense.
Republicans spent over $123 million in Iowa alone. And that was only to get the GOP nomination. When you consider national spending for the Presidential general election, $84 million isn’t really that much.
I won’t go so far as to say this whole circus was the best idea to come out of the Trump campaign, but he has gotten a lot of mileage out of it. And, it’s not over. He will re-hash this victim-hood in rallies to come, not to mention being at the top of the news cycles when his appeals are rejected. All proof, he will claim, that Biden is crooked.
Cash judgements will never mean anything to Trump. You can be sure he has more than enough socked away that can’t be touched that the only thing a cash judgement will be is an accounting issue for him.
The only thing that will have an effect on Trump would be to keep him out of the public eye. That would kill him (both figuratively and, likely, literally).
When I went to sign up for helicopter flight instruction, the first thing the instructor asked is whether I could juggle. (I demonstrated on the spot. )
I have read this many times. But I’ve also read that a jury trial was never an option. What’s the dope?
Opinion seems mixed, but Judge Engoron suggested on the first day of trial that even if a jury had been requested, it was not clear that Trump would have been entitled to one. Habba apparently then turned to the media and said something to the effect: “Did you guys get that?”
It turns on the nature of the remedy sought. Pure damages cases, where only money is in issue, are typically jury. But orders for the enforcement of statutes, such as cancelling the registration of business corporations under state law, apparently are not typically jury.
As always, not a US lawyer, so just relying on the news reports. Here’s one:
And another:
The distinction flows from the English legal system. Matters at common law, such as damage claims, were tried by a jury. Matters under equity were tried by judge alone. That distinction is preserved by the 7th Amendment:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
So, no constitutional right to a jury in non-common law matters in the federal court system.
The 7th Amendment is one of the few amendments that has not been incorporated to apply to states by the 14th Amendment, but I believe most states follow this distinction as a matter of state constitutional or statute law.
No, it’s not. I saw it on Twitter with replies along the lines of - “not seeing it anywhere on Truth Social.”
These things are ubiquitous now. And I think they’re fairly easy to spot. For one thing - no caps, but if you ever see a post where Trump admits anyone losing anything on his behalf, or personally … it’s fake.
)
