“Much easier to appeal a bench verdict.”
Untrue, I think.
There is no difference in the grounds for appealing either a jury or non-jury verdict. In either case an appeals court must find a flaw in the application of the law. Matters of fact-finding in the trial wouldn’t be reviewable.
The "Back to the Future" professor judge in this case has already opened that door with his ludicrous statement about the value of Mar-A-Lago.
I don’t think it’s the grounds, I think its the time it takes to hold the trial.
Findings of fact are reviewable, but generally only on a no evidence basis, i.e., there was no evidence to support the finding. If you have 100 witnesses testify that the Earth is round and one witness testify that the Earth is flat, then a finding by either a judge or jury that the Earth is flat would not be overturned on a no evidence basis.
There are, however, more avenues to appeal a jury verdict than a bench (judge) verdict. For example, a jury must be given a jury charge with specific questions, instructions and definitions. An appeal can frequently be based on errors in the jury charge, e.g., the instructions did not accurately reflect the law or the judge erred in failing to give an instruction, definition or question requested by the defense. A judge does not have to answer specific questions and his verdict will be upheld if there are any facts on which the verdict could be based.
Perhaps Trump’s lawyers think there is a clear legal flaw the judge is overlooking. In that case would a jury really help Trump? I mean the jury is instructed on the law by the judge right?