“Legal” Twitter Speaks

This is what happens when people try to play lawyer on social media to spread propaganda. This is the standard in EVERY appeal in America throughout history. Appellate courts aren’t triers of fact that hear testimony from witnesses. pic.twitter.com/FjkwyfcAa8

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) February 6, 2024

I’ve kind of been waiting for this because some commentary on the court opinion today got all excited about the opinion referencing the seriousness of the crimes alleged in D.C.

The Court discussed those allegations because Trump filed a Motion to Dismiss. In the trial court and on appeal, such a motion is considered in light of assuming all allegations in the charging documents are true. The test is this: if all the allegations are true, but these still fail to meet legal standards required (I speak as generally as possible here), the case must be dismissed. It is, in other words, a high bar to clear. You can’t get there without convincing the court that, even if everything alleged is true, I can’t be found guilty as a matter of law.

So any court hearing or reviewing the motion can, as the D.C. court did, look at the allegations and say, in effect, this is a very bad situation and the arguments for dismissal aren’t good enough.

It doesn’t even reach the presumption of innocence because denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final judgment on the merits. In fact it just returns the case to a process towards a final judgment on the merits, preserving the presumption of innocence for the trial.

So many people think having uninformed opinions is a substitute for law school and legal practice experience. You know, like advising people to find ways to get bleach into their bodies to fight COVID.

Idiots, IOW.