Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: j.havenfarm

How in the world can it be upheld? Because she can’t remember or give a specific date or even year, that nullifys Trump’s ability to mount a defense. He cannot provide exculpatory evidence.


105 posted on 05/09/2023 12:48:17 PM PDT by TallahasseeConservative (Isaiah 40:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]


To: TallahasseeConservative

As the case in civil court turns on a preponderance is the evidence, trump offered no evidence to refute the claim. His liability was assured but this. The real question is why didn’t he mount a defense. My guess — more costly to be cross examined in open court under oath than pay a few million dollars.

Not putting on a defense were this criminal makes sense. As that burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. But for civil procedure — trump offered zero evidence. No defense was mounted.


189 posted on 05/09/2023 2:23:12 PM PDT by gas_dr (Conditions of Socratic debate: Intelligence, Candor, and Good Will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: TallahasseeConservative

For the reason I said. The jury believed her. Full stop. That they didn’t believe her FULLY, that is found the rape claim untrue, shows that they considered the evidence. That the appellate judges would have found differently doesn’t matter; again they do not weigh the evidence. I won’t send guess the decision not to testify, but one can hardly credibly claim one didnt have a chance to contradict the testimony if you don’t testify. Remember the burden of proof in civil cases is the preponderance of the evidence. Even if the jury thought it is only 51% likely she was telling the truth, that is enough. It’s just not a difficult standard to meet if the defendant doesn’t at least show up


197 posted on 05/09/2023 2:30:30 PM PDT by j.havenfarm (22 years on Free Republic, 12/10/22! more then 6500 replies and still not shutting up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

To: TallahasseeConservative

For the reason I said. The jury believed her. Full stop. That they didn’t believe her FULLY, that is found the rape claim untrue, shows that they considered the evidence. That the appellate judges would have found differently doesn’t matter; again they do not weigh the evidence. I won’t send guess the decision not to testify, but one can hardly credibly claim one didnt have a chance to contradict the testimony if you don’t testify. Remember the burden of proof in civil cases is the preponderance of the evidence. Even if the jury thought it is only 51% likely she was telling the truth, that is enough. It’s just not a difficult standard to meet if the defendant doesn’t at least show up


198 posted on 05/09/2023 2:30:32 PM PDT by j.havenfarm (22 years on Free Republic, 12/10/22! more then 6500 replies and still not shutting up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson