ReportWire

Tag: justice system

  • Donald Trump’s Nine Lives

    Donald Trump’s Nine Lives

    [ad_1]

    Listen to this article

    Produced by ElevenLabs and News Over Audio (NOA) using AI narration.

    Donald Trump loves the musical Cats, and like the titular creatures, the former president seems to have nine lives. Today, in the face of yet another near-death financial experience, Trump got his latest reprieve. An appeals-court panel in New York State reduced the bond he must post in a civil fraud case from more than $464 million to just $175 million.

    Given that the past few months have seen Trump repeatedly use legal procedures to his advantage, drawing out the cases against him in the hope of eventually escaping them, this decision may look like yet another infuriating case of Trump extracting injustice from the justice system. But in fact it is not such an instance, and the reduction is actually quite appropriate.

    Recall the timeline. In mid-February, Justice Arthur Engoron ruled that Trump must pay more than $350 million, plus interest, after he, his sons, and the Trump Organization engaged, according to the judge’s findings, in a years-long pattern of fraud, inflating and deflating the reported value of his assets in order to profit long-term. Trump promptly appealed the ruling, but as a defendant, he must post the value of his judgment while appealing.

    The problem for Trump is that $350 million (which interest soon brought to nearly half a billion dollars) is a huge amount, even for him. He claims to have a net worth in the billions, but that number includes a great deal of assets that aren’t really available. Part of it is nebulous brand value, but a lot is in real estate—value that can’t be quickly accessed. Trump claimed in a deposition in the case that he had more than $400 million in cash and growing. That’s questionable and, even if true, wouldn’t leave him enough to cover the bond.

    Instead, he sought to obtain a bond from a company that specializes in such products. Bonding companies promise courts to cover the cost of a judgment. In return, they usually demand collateral from a client such as Trump—or maybe particularly from Trump, given his long history of not paying his debts. One of them this month posted a bond in the much smaller judgment against Trump for defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll. But Trump was unable to obtain a bond large enough to cover the fraud judgment, even after approaching 30 companies. His lawyers said it was a “practical impossibility” in a filing. (Trump, ever helpful to his own defense, claimed on social media that he actually has more than $500 million in cash.)

    The bond was due today, and Trump got his good news from the court just in time. It is a stay, or pause, not a permanent reduction. For now, the original judgment amount will still be due if Trump doesn’t win on appeal. Today’s outcome is neither a shock nor a travesty.

    Offering temporary relief on the bond makes some sense. Imagine that the panel had not reduced the bond amount. Attorney General Letitia James could have started seizing his accounts or his properties, or else he would have been forced to start selling them. But this is a terrible moment to be selling commercial real estate, because the office market has not recovered from COVID. Beyond that, any buyers would know Trump was in a pinch and be happy to profiteer off him.

    But then imagine that a few weeks from now, Trump won his appeal, convincing the court that Engoron’s finding was incorrect, or that the calculated amount of the penalty was unfair. Trump would have no way to recover the assets he’d been forced to unload at fire-sale prices. It doesn’t take any affection for Trump to see why a court would want to avoid such an outcome, and why—even if Trump would still be filthy rich—this would be unjust punishment.

    The problem for Trump remains winning on appeal. He railed against Engoron in a statement and claimed that the judge was wrong on law, but legal experts told me that they thought Trump would struggle to win his appeal. Engoron’s decision was written in clear detail, as was his calculation of Trump’s penalty, which is based on how much ill-gotten gain Trump extracted from his fraud. “The judge here did a very good job,” Jim Wheaton, a law professor at William & Mary, told me. “Whether you agree or not, the judge very carefully made factual conclusions based on testimony in front of the judge. The judge made credibility decisions based on testimony of witnesses before him.”

    Trump’s instinct for stalling the legal cases against him is pernicious. U.S. courts must find a way to balance the need for procedural protection with the principle that justice delayed is justice denied, and so far they have shown themselves ill-equipped; consider that the U.S. Supreme Court won’t even hear arguments about Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution until a month from today. But forcing Trump to put a FOR SALE BY OWNER sign out in front of Trump Tower today wouldn’t serve justice, and might actually undermine it. As for Trump, he may just be delaying that outcome—but that’s another problem for him to try to wriggle, cat-like, out of on another day.

    [ad_2]

    David A. Graham

    Source link

  • ‘A Stark Contrast in Approach’: Michael O’Malley and Matthew Ahn Go Toe-to-Toe in Prosecutor Race Forum

    ‘A Stark Contrast in Approach’: Michael O’Malley and Matthew Ahn Go Toe-to-Toe in Prosecutor Race Forum

    [ad_1]

    click to enlarge

    Tim Evanson

    The Cuyahoga County Justice Center in an undated photo.

    Two very disparate takes on Cuyahoga County’s justice system were on display this week at virtual forum between county prosecutor candidates Matthew Ahn and Michael O’Malley.

    Held over Zoom Thursday afternoon, and moderated by Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association attorney Matthew Besser, the two candidates vying to win the Democratic primary — and, essentially, the entire race — for the top legal seat in the county in November sparred on a number of topics, from the brimming jail population to office transparency, from conviction ethics to the issue of the death penalty.

    The event amplified the noticeable differences between the two: in age, in policy, in political lean, in overall stature. (Except in dress: both candidates showed up in a powder blue shirt and a royal-blue jacket.)

    To put it relatively brief: 32-year-old Ahn further solidified himself as the candidate of progressive ideas; 59-year-old O’Malley as the weathered prosecutor resting on the badge of experience.

    Among issues of Cuyahoga County’s future jail site build, of office transparency, nothing seemed more of contrast than the topic of court bindovers, when juveniles are tried as adults. Besides mandatory bindovers—say, when a 16-year-old is caught on video killing two victims—the two sparred about each other’s idea of discretionary, or voluntary, bindovers. When the court decides.

    Ahn’s viewpoint was, of course, driven by data and race politics: 90% of kids tried as adults in recent years, he said, are Black. Therefore, he argued, the court should look away from bindovers, and more so to what causes a 16-year-old to use a gun in the first place. (Though Ahn was nebulous on such examples.)

    click to enlarge Thursday's Zoom debate: Ahn versus O'Malley. - Mark Oprea

    Mark Oprea

    Thursday’s Zoom debate: Ahn versus O’Malley.

    “All of the studies that we have demonstrate that children who are tried as adults and sent to adult prison are much more likely to commit more crimes upon their release as compared to children who are kept in juvenile court for the exact same charges,” Ahn said. “So this is a practice that is also subject to a very severe racial disparity.”

    O’Malley retaliated with his own data: 80% of last year’s teenage suspects were tried as adults; though only nine total bindovers were discretionary. He added that, as per policy, those optional bindovers—ordered by the court or by O’Malley’s office—require mental health reports, dives into prior crime, into a kid’s “response to previous treatment.”

    The prosecutor, who reiterated several times he’s been involved in the county’s justice system since 1987, rested on a hard-nosed stance for which he’s become known.

    “Fifty-three percent of those bindovers last years were aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder,” he said. “So these aren’t, like, kids stealing Hyundais and Kias. These are individuals with guns who are causing havoc.”

    But what data is, and how it’s handled, was probably the most illuminating divider between the two. Whenever Ahn was knee-deep in the tenets of his “fairer, data-driven, more evidence-based” take on the prosecutor’s seat, O’Malley seemed to raise his brows, or allow a kind of dubious smirk. And for every career point O’Malley was proud to rattle off, Ahn seemed to have the policy tweak in mind ready to go.

    We saw this in the candidates’ take on the Office’s Conviction Integrity Unit, a branch of the prosecutor’s office that takes on cases of alleged wrongful conviction. Ahn again wanted to overhaul the unit with a “collaborative approach” to avoid poor judgment; O’Malley offered a hands-off rebuttal that appeared to mock Ahn’s data mind.

    “I’m proud to say that the rate of relief [for the Unit] is fifteen times better than that of the Ohio Innocence Project,” O’Malley said, citing the criminal justice reform advocacy group. “Which should tell you the type of work we’re doing.”

    The volley continued, and came to a head, when the two discussed their takes on capital punishment.

    Despite “moral questions,” Ahn called Ohio’s death penalty a “policy failure on every front,” citing the “eight wrongful death sentences” in Cuyahoga County in recent memory—one of the highest rates by county in the nation. He mentioned Alabama, which has the country’s highest error rates in capital punishment. (For every eight executed, one is exonerated.)

    “That is better accountability, it is better for victims, and it is better on a policy level,” Ahn said.

    O’Malley interjected: “I don’t understand Matt’s view after his three or four minutes” of speaking.

    “My feelings have certainly evolved; I do a lot of self-reflection as the prosecutor,” O’Malley added. “All of these cases are serious. As I said, we have not had a capital case in Cuyahoga County in over four years. But I can tell you this: If we have a mass shooting with mass casualties? My guess is you’d probably see it again.”

    In his concluding two minutes, Ahn spoke pointedly about the campaign he’s run since early 2023, one that’s fueled primarily by an almost emotional belief in best practices. Before convictions. Before bindovers. “That is not the way my opponent has run the office. That is not the way we have seen the office run.”

    Ahn added, “What you’ve seen here today is a stark contrast in approach.”

    O’Malley, in his concluding thoughts, seemed to shrug in his swivel chair. Experience, he said. Managment. “The reality is, Matt’s never had a case,” he said. “He’s never worked with law enforcement. He has no idea what data we use. He has no idea what we do with the data.”

    Both candidates will have roughly a month of campaigning before the county primary on March 19. The seat itself will be decided in November’s general election.

    Subscribe to Cleveland Scene newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

    [ad_2]

    Mark Oprea

    Source link