Trump granted immediate appeal in Fani Willis case by Fulton County Judge McAfee

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What you read or do not read, does not change the facts. Team trump historically are huge losers, when they actually face a judge and jury.

Make yourself feel better. Send in some of your retirement to help pay his legal bills.

What judge and what jury? Are you imagining facts again?

 

[para bellum]

There was one weird sentence in McAfee's decision that jumped out at me. I brushed it off as kind of just a trivial error in language, but now I am not so sure. It's this:

"Even after considering the proffered cellphone testimony from Defendant Trump, along with the entirety of the other evidence, neither side was able to conclusively establish by a preponderance of the evidence when the relationship evolved into a romantic one."

It sounds innocent, but it's a legal oxymoron. The word "conclusively" is what you need with a "reasonable doubt" standard. "Preponderance" is a much lower bar, and only means there is more evidence on one side than the other.

Roman's attorneys had preponderance. Willis had her testimony and Wade's. 2 pieces of evidence. Willis was evasive and dismissive of the court and drew ire from McAfee. Wade impeached his own credibility by failing to disclose his SADA earnings to the Family Court where his divorce is pending. That was it.

Roman had Yearti, Wade's divorce lawyer who (impeached himself), the text messages, and the cell phone records. 4 pieces of evidence.

Now this isn't a mountain of evidence either way, but preponderance does not need to "be beyond a reasonable doubt" and certainly not "conclusive".

So maybe McAfee left that door open intentionally- punt the Willis decision up to the appellate court, and keep his own hands clean...

 

[Supposn]

There was one weird sentence in McAfee's decision that jumped out at me. I brushed it off as kind of just a trivial error in language, but now I am not so sure. It's this:

"Even after considering the proffered cellphone testimony from Defendant Trump, along with the entirety of the other evidence, neither side was able to conclusively establish by a preponderance of the evidence when the relationship evolved into a romantic one." ... The word "conclusively" is what you need with a "reasonable doubt" standard. "Preponderance" is a much lower bar, and only means there is more evidence on one side than the other.

Para bellum, I suppose Judge McAfee is adjudicating a motion by some among the defendants regarding who's prosecuting the case against them. Although the case itself is a criminal indictment of the defendant's alleged criminal acts, the judge's determination as to how the criminal trial should be conducted is a civil, rather than a criminal matter. Respectfully, Supposn

 

[para bellum]

Para bellum, I suppose Judge McAfee is adjudicating a motion by some among the defendants regarding who's prosecuting the case against them. Although the case itself is a criminal indictment of the defendant's alleged criminal acts, the judge's determination as to how the criminal trial should be conducted is a civil, rather than a criminal matter. Respectfully, Supposn

Totally agree. The RICO case is a criminal case, and the decision that McAfee made was a decision in a misconduct hearing, not a criminal matter.

Preponderance is a perfectly reasonable standard for that proceeding. What I found a odd was using the term "conclusive", which is not needed when preponderance is the standard. That is a term more appropriate when reasonable doubt is the standard.

You can take the word "conclusively" out and just say "neither side was able to establish by a preponderance of the evidence when the relationship evolved into a romantic one."

That serves the same purpose, and it doesn't leave the impression that a preponderance standard requires "conclusive" evidence.

McAfee is a very careful speaker- he doesn't usually say things that he doesn't need to say. It just jumped out at me because it seemed out of context for the standard being applied.

 

[Supposn]

Totally agree. The RICO case is a criminal case, and the decision that McAfee made was a decision in a misconduct hearing, not a criminal matter.

Preponderance is a perfectly reasonable standard for that proceeding. What I found a odd was using the term "conclusive", which is not needed when preponderance is the standard. That is a term more appropriate when reasonable doubt is the standard.

You can take the word "conclusively" out and just say "neither side was able to establish by a preponderance of the evidence when the relationship evolved into a romantic one."

That serves the same purpose, and it doesn't leave the impression that a preponderance standard requires "conclusive" evidence.

McAfee is a very careful speaker- he doesn't usually say things that he doesn't need to say. It just jumped out at me because it seemed out of context for the standard being applied.

Yes. you've made what I believe to be a valid point in this, (your post) I've quoted. Respectfully, Supposn