Letitia James’ Donald Trump Win Under Threat of ‘Outright Reversal’—Lawyer

New York Attorney General Letitia James’ win in former President Donald Trump’s civil fraud case could be completely reversed, according to a former federal prosecutor.
Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama, made the comments on the CAFE Insider podcast that she co-hosts with Preet Bharara, another former U.S. attorney.
Trump’s lawyers urged a New York appeals court on Thursday to reverse or reduce the nearly $500 million penalty in the case stemming from a lawsuit brought by James, a Democrat. Some of the judges on the court appeared receptive, with one calling the “immense” penalty in the case “troubling.”
Asked by Bharara if she wanted to predict the odds of “outright reversal versus reduction,” Vance said: “My crystal ball is never very good on appellate courts. It sounds like an outright reversal, right, as opposed to a reduction.”
She added: “Whether they’ll ultimately debate among themselves and split the baby in some way remains to be seen. This was not a good day in court for Tish James.”
Newsweek has contacted Vance for further comment.
James’ lawsuit led to Judge Arthur Engoron ruling in February that Trump had lied for years about his wealth on documents given to banks, insurers, and others to make deals and secure loans. The judge ordered the former president and the other defendants to pay more than $350 million in penalties—a sum that has now ballooned with interest to over $489 million.
Trump’s lawyer John Sauer said during arguments on Thursday that the penalty in the case was “draconian” and that there were no direct victims since the banks involved in the transactions were satisfied.
He argued that if the verdict is allowed to stand, “people can’t do business in real estate” without fearing they’ll face similar scrutiny.
Deputy New York Solicitor General Judith Vale argued the penalty was significant because “there was a lot of fraud and illegality.”
On CAFE Insider, Vance said that when appellate judges review a case, they are “very deferential to the finder of facts’ view of the facts.”
“In this case, it’s Judge Engoron who’s looking at facts and making these decisions, and they’ll defer to their decision about what the true facts are. But that’s not what this case is about now.
“It appears that these concerns are about legal theories and the way statutes were interpreted, and the appellate courts will take a fresh look at those issues and make up their own minds about whether they believe the trial judge got it right or wrong. So this is a verdict that’s really in jeopardy based on what we heard at oral argument.”