What reason is there to think Trump would be let out pending appeal?

Politics & Elections
1

So this has come up a couple of times. It’s been claimed in some quarters (on this board and elsewhere) that even if Trump is convicted of a felony before the 2024 election he will be allowed to remain free while appealing his conviction

What evidence is there to see support this assertion? What legal basis would there be for Trump to be allowed to stay out of jail while his appeals play our?

AFAIK the reason behind letting some people remain free pending appeal is that when someone is given a short sentence there is good chance they would complete their entire sentence while their appeal is played out. This is why Bannon (convicted of a minor offense) was allowed out pending appeal but Navarro (convicted of a more serious felony) was not. Assuming Trump is convicted of a serious felony (say, the J6 case in DC just before the election) what reason would there be to think he’d be let out of appeal?

2

This is uncharted territory.

My WAG is a conservative court (like SCOTUS) would say you cannot jail a presidential candidate. Democracy is just too important and, if you could jail an opponent while campaigning before all appeals were sorted out, it would lead to a new, underhanded tool against political rivals. Just toss them in jail on some trumped up charges (heh) so they cannot campaign. If they get let out later…oopsie…ah well.

A liberal court would likely say he should be treated the same as anyone else convicted for crimes (which would probably mean going to jail).

Note: I say this thinking Trump should have been in jail long ago. If there is one thing he is good at it is dodging the legal system and delaying justice seemingly forever.

3

Sounds correct. But would they move fast enough?

How long is the Bragg case going to take? Couple months? June conviction (assuming conviction), at the earliest?.

Then a social worker has to prepare a pre-sentencing report, right? They get at least a couple weeks to do that, probably longer. I can’t see SCOTUS intervening then. Before you know it, the date to surrender, and Election Day, are mighty close together.

4

But would that decision end up in such a conservative court? The appeal itself might (I guess ? Are appeala assigned at random so could end up with some of Cannons ilk?), but by the time that is heard Trump would already be in jail (and even the can the judge ask for the defendant to released while the appeal is going on, before they reach their verdict?).

And if the SCOTUS (where presumably the appeal would end up eventually?) has a majority who feels that way the J6 conviction ain’t gonna happen. The immunity case in April would go for Trump and everything is off.

5

They would rule 2 minutes after the judge issued the sentence. SC delays are only for Trumps benefit.

6

Probably.

It seems this is what the current SCOTUS is trying to do. They have granted Trump a hearing and delayed it about as long as they can. Then they will render an opinion towards the end of June, stretching things out further. Then the trial needs to be scheduled (assuming the SCOTUS does not grant Trump complete immunity which they almost certainly will not do). Then the court case might happen before the election? Even if Trump is convicted I can imagine a court (even SCOTUS) intervening and saying there needs to be a stay on going to jail since the election is now so close.

Again, just my WAG.

7

I think yes. It would get to SCOTUS tout suite. Jack Smith recently tried to skip a step and go straight to the Supreme Court. He was denied but they could certainly jump in on this one.

8

I don’t think that would be the case, see above, but even if it was that would not be ruling if Trump would go to prison pending appeal as he’d already be in prison, they could only rule to free him from prison as quickly as they could. They would not stop him from going to prison

9

iANAL but this doesnt seem like a plausible chain of events to me. Thats just not how appeals work, and no one in the judiciary (even Justice Cannon) has shown any evidence they are willing to throw all convention out the window to help Trump.

Worst case I can see is it ends up with a conservative appeals court judge who might fast track it, to get him out quickly. But he’s going to jail if he’s convicted (of a major felony, which is not guaranteed in the hush money case)

The SCOTUS aren’t going to help him once he’s convicted (as if there was a majority in favor of helping him, he’s not getting convicted)

10

SCOTUS can and has moved fast and jumped the line before (see Bush v. Gore). That took the SCOTUS four days and they absolutely jumped ahead of the line in the legal process.

This court has already shown its willingness to lean in on the side of Trump. There is little reason to think they would not do so again if they can.

11

So all I have to do is declare I’m running for president and I’m immune from imprisonment for life? Sounds like a good deal. Where do I sign?

Like when they overturned the 2020 election for him? Or said he didn’t have to turn over his tax returns? Or when they let him end DACA?

(Clutches earpiece) Wait, wait, I’m being told they did the opposite of all those things.

12

I get that. I suspect they would limit it somehow. Someone who already had their party’s nomination and/or within some weeks of the election.

Again, it can be anything or nothing. This is all guesswork at this point (with some ability to point at what they have done so far which is to help Trump legally).

13

Which (while very unlikely as reaching a conviction would have meant SCOTUS has already ruled against Trump in the immunity case) would still mean hearing the appeal while trump is in jail. Unilaterally overriding the previous judge’s (completely ordinary run of the mill) decision to ensure a felon is not allowed free during appeal would be completely unheard of and go against convention.

14

I knew that being the founder, chairman, and sole voting delegate of the Official Whackadoodle Party would pay off eventually!

15

And they will almost certainly rule against Trump’s immunity argument. The win for Trump is not a ruling in his favor. The win is in giving Trump the delay he wants.

16

And then they will turn around and rule for him in a way that is even more blatantly partisan and extremely unconventional? I don’t see that.

17

I don’t see how they could even do that. There’s no constitutional question to be resolved here.

18

Agreeing to hear Trump’s immunity argument is unconventional. Two lower courts gave very sober and rational opinions on why Trump does not get the immunity he seeks. There really is no rational argument that Trump should get immunity. It is inconceivable the SCOTUS would decide otherwise.

But, the SCOTUS agreed to hear the case and then put it on the slowest track they could. The court can move with alacrity if they want which would seem to be something they should do here. But, they aren’t. They are slow-rolling it.

19

What was the constitutional question in Bush v. Gore?

20

A little. Actually granting it would be even more unconventional still. Swooping in and overriding lower judge’s decision and freeing a felon before his appeal was heard, just because he’s campaigning to be president. Would be beyond unconventional, it would be completely unprecedented. It would make no sense then wouldn’t be willing to do the former but would the latter