Sounds like what a defense attorney, trying to influence a judge, might well say.
Trump is incredibly wealthy (according to himself) or at least has significant resources available for use, has access to a private jet, and owns properties all over the world. He’s shown no particular ties to any community that would deter or prevent flight, and a long history of reckless disregard for legal restrictions or the consequences of his actions. An evenhanded judge may very well consider him a flight risk, especially for cases likely to end in a prison term.
So that does answer my question unfortunately. This does look to be similar to what might happen in Trump’s case:
He was convicted, and ordered to prison (in February)
Before that date he was able to appeal
The appeal court cancelled the original order, allowing him to stay out of prison
He lost his appeal, but then appealed to SCOTUS. Who also allowed him to stay out of prison during the appeal.
He won in the SCOTUS and the conviction was vacated.
Though it does seem like the primary reason for that was the appeal courts did think there was a good grounds for appeal. That may or may not be the case for Trump (the hush money trial does seem to be a bit of stretch in terms of what he’s being charged with). And of course if the appellate judge is someone of Cannon’s ilk that won’t matter at all, plus they could try pushing the appeal directly to the SCOTUS.
two years works (although I may have the sentence length wrong):
Yeah its remarkably hard to see what the sentence was. It was originally 2 years but reduced prior to sentencing based on further evidence, but nowhere I’ve seen says what that new sentence was. Presumably not short enough that finishing his sentence before the appeal was a possibility, but maybe?
It occurs to me that “flight risk” should be given a different meaning when applied to Trump.
The normal definition of flight risk is based on normal criminals; it means that the criminal might flee to a foreign land, thus beyond any
influence on America, and doing so is considered a Bad Thing for the country.
I really do not understand why bail amounts don’t always take into account the defendant’s wealth. Isn’t what’s affordable to someone always a function of how much they have?
A bail amount of $1,000 may be totally out of reach of some defendants, while that $3 billion Durst originally received might be a situation of “Let me make a few phone calls; we’ll have it to you sometime tomorrow.”
The $450,000 bail Durst received may have been seen as a huge amount by the judge, but if Jeff Bezos got that bail it would be pretty much just pocket change. Isn’t the point of bail to be set high enough to assure that the defendant shows?
How so? Didn’t the Trump Organization just close a deal with Saudi Arabia? Saudi, as I’m sure you know, does not have an extradition treaty with the US.
Fear of losing the bail is one issue, another being funding any needed bounty hunter.
Good catch on your part. I should not have assumed Trump will stay in the U.S.
I predict Trump would be, if convicted, let out pending appeal in liberal manner. But I don’t know the relevant New York, Georgia, and federal ins and outs, so as usual, could be wrong.
I think Trump is too smart to skip bail for any serious period of time, regardless of amount. Again I could be wrong, but am pretty confident on this one.
