if the defendant KNEW that the court would find for the accuser.. no matter what... in what was known to be a foregone conclusion that would be appealled.. it would be stupid to go on the stand to give more items to be questioned, challenged, accused and prosecuted under a newly triggered statute of limitations.
trump will appeal. trump will overturn this due to the ex poste facto application of a recently created “addition” to the statute of limitation alone.
fight where you are more likely to win.
Hmmm. Well, the statute of limitation issue is in the NewYork criminal case, not this civil case. Beyond the fact that you’re talking about the wrong case, please remember what I said: appeals are not a mulligan, a do over in front of a different court. The judgment is presumed to be correct, and if you didn’t show up to contradict the testimony, you essentially have to show there was NO evidence to support the judgment. Not that the evidence was weak, or that it shouldn’t have been believed , but that NO evidence existed. I agree the plaintiff is a nut, and probably a liar, but her testimony, believed by the jury, is all that’s required to support the judgment. I know it’s not what you and some of the others want to hear, but I’ve been a lawyer for more than 30 years. What I’ve outlined is what the law provides for, period.