On the grounds that it is absurd.
The president of the US has to govern from prison? How does that work? How is that ok for the country?
It is absurd.
I think there is a premise in legal circles that absurd/ridiculous decisions should be avoided.
IANAL and I do not know the proper term but it makes obvious sense.
I’m actually kind of surprised there’s never been a wacky comedy movie called White House Arrest.
Debs was sentenced to ten years in 1918, but was released pending appeal, and the Supreme Court ruled against him in April, 1919. He went to federal prison that month. He had already been in prison for over a year when the Socialists nominated him for president in 1920.
That is not a precedent that would relate to the Trump situation.
This a double tangent (a perpendicular? A second order derivative?) this more suited to the original thread this was spun off of
How is resolving any of those questions the purview of SCOTUS?
Not to go all “Air Bud” here, but there’s nothing in the rulebook to say the president can’t govern from prison.
Wow. That’s a compelling elevator pitch if ever I heard one.
Was he elected president and governed from prison?
I suspect they knew Debs had zero chance of becoming president.
Its absurd that Cleetua McStaby be sent to prison while appealing his sentence for robbing a gas station, as how can he be expected to perform his duties as gas station attendant from prison? Preposterous! The SCOTUS must intervene immediately!
If it is not apparent that Donald Trump is being treated differently by the legal system than Cleetua McStaby I don’t know what to tell you except you are not paying attention.
ETA: More broadly, the whole question can only have speculative answers. We saw SOCTUS intervene in Bush v. Gore because it involved the presidency. Why is it beyond imagination that the court would do something about this on the spot too? Especially since they have already shown a willingness to lean in for Trump.
This SCOTUS thing is kind of a sidetrack IMO. Sure I get the SCOTUS has pretty much unlimited power and the only thing stopping them from using it in ridiculous ways is the appearance of propeity and a vague desire not to appear political.
But that’s not really a legal reason to give as to why Trump won’t be sent to prison while waiting for his appeal. I was looking for an actual precedent for something like that happening. Not for the SCOTUS, or any other judge, doing some unexpected political thing. Are there actual examples of felons, sentenced to long sentences, being kept of our of prison while the appeal, even though there is little chance they would complete the sentence before the appeal?
I mean is a stay on a decision like this even a thing? Sending felons to prison while they appeal is a completely normal thing to do, is that even something that can be “stayed”?
I don’t think the consideration is whether the sentence is likely to be completed or not. I’ve never heard a court take that into consideration. They do seem to care about likelihood of success on appeal.
Here’s the statute, but no guidance for the trial judge. (perhaps there is caselaw on that)
18 U.S.C. § 3141 - Release and detention authority generally
(a) Pending Trial.—
A judicial officer authorized to order the arrest of a person under section 3041 of this title before whom an arrested person is brought shall order that such person be released or detained, pending judicial proceedings, under this chapter.(b) Pending Sentence or Appeal.—
A judicial officer of a court of original jurisdiction over an offense, or a judicial officer of a Federal appellate court, shall order that, pending imposition or execution of sentence, or pending appeal of conviction or sentence, a person be released or detained under this chapter.
None of my clients were allowed to remain free on appeal. There were either already in custody or remanded to the Bureau of Prisons at sentencing (or given a date to report).
It does happen though. See Bannon, for example.
I thought both things were required (both a reasonable expectation that the appeal might succeed AND a short enough sentence that they might have completed it before the appeal succeeds) but IANAL
Bill Cosby is a typical example. It took 6 months from the day the jury convicted him till the day he entered a jail cell.
He was found guilty of sexual assault on April 26, 2018, but was not sentenced until September 25, 2018.
In the meantime, he remained free (on bail of $1 million).
Also , Bernie Madhoff.
Pleaded guilty on March 12, remained free for 3 and half months until entering prison on June 29,2009.
I assume that Trump is not going to be in a cell before the election.
Or after the election. (if he wins.)
If two years works (although I may have the sentence length wrong):
Court allows ex-Va. gov McDonnell to be free for appeal
Paul Manafort is another possibility. His story is even more complicated, but may apply. It sounds like he was allowed house arrest some of the time when his case was under appeal with a 90 month sentence . However, it was partly a COVID accommodation.
Thanks to https://gemini.google.com/app for the McDonnell and Manafort possibilities.
Unfortunately, AI only seems to know about cases in the news. Lexis, anyone?
Googling seems to indicate that federal courts, Georgia, and New York do not have simple rules on who gets bail pending appeals. In Georgia judges seem to have discretion, and in a federal cases, circuits vary. But my information could be outdated.
For what it is worth, in Pennsylvania, we have an actual rule:
My direct, albeit low-confidence, answer to the thread title question is:
Yes, the reason being short sentence length.
Did McDonnell and Manafort have to pay bail as a condition of not being imprisoned while under appeal?
Assuming they did, what would be reasonable bail for Trump should he find himself in that circumstance? IANAL but it seems to me that his attorneys should tell him now that he needs to get a good estimate of the amount of cash he could raise if he needed to. “Look, Mr. Trump, there’s a chance you’ll be convicted and sentenced to time in prison. If you want to avoid being in prison while your appeal goes through, it’s probably a good idea to be able to provide the judge with documented evidence on how much bail you can afford. You’ve publicly stated you are worth $10 billion. If that’s a true number, it’s not unrealistic to set bail at $500 million to $1 billion. Based on the problems you’re having in raising cash for the appeal process in the Carroll case and the fraud case, you can’t raise that much. Let’s get some hard numbers on what you can afford.”
The wouldn’t even hit the “Ten Most Absurd Things About Trump” list. By the way what stops him legally from being President while in prison?
Non-violent defendant with ties to the community? Zero.
New York City conservatives blast DA Alvin Bragg for allegedly releasing violent criminals, on their own recognizance, who then offend again. It will be ironic if when Donald Trump is the defendant, conservatives start liking Bragg’s partial bail reform, while progressives dissent.
It’s a problem when bail is so high the defendant cannot afford it. In that sense, bail, if really needed, should take into account the defendant’s wealth. But amounts you mention sound like eight amendment violations. From the Wikipedia article on the excessive bail clause:
I
Nothing legally, and nothing practically.
There could be a problem where he wants to spend half the day watching Fox News while other inmates prefer sports and CNN. But true equal treatment is unlikely. Al Capone had his own radio, and Trump would get his own TV.
As for the rest of the job, liberal email and visitation should be available to all prisoners.
What ties to the community?
And while he hasn’t committed violence himself, he’s incited others to violence on multiple occasions.
Sounds like what a tough prosecutor, trying to influence the judge, may well say – and that an even-handed judge – and most judges are even-handed – will not buy. Flight risk? When he’ll be at least 78 years old? And the media follows his every move?
IMHO, if Trump meets the criteria for release common in a given jurisdiction, any extraordinary bail conditions will go in his favor. He will petition to be allowed both domestic and international travel for his job, whether as POTUS or a businessman, and get it approved.
If he skips bail, he will be at a known U.S. location. Should, as seems slightly most likely to me, the location be the White House, fuhgeddaboudit. If he’s not POTUS, it will be an easy pickup for the federal marshals.