“Too many lawyers trying to screw in a lightbulb”

E. Jean Carroll's lawyer hurls zingers at Trump during defamation appeal hearing https://t.co/kx9GtQq4fO

— Raw Story (@RawStory) September 6, 2024

So if I read this correctly:

She noted Trump himself was present in the New York courtroom and suggested his silence there was telling.

"Mr. Trump is here today," Kaplan told the court. "He could have taken the stand." 

Trump was at the appellate hearing this morning.  Odd, since the only word he would have understood was his own name.  But it explains this:

Attorney John Sauer appeared in the New York federal courtroom about 10 a.m. as oral arguments commenced in Trump's appeal of the jury verdict finding him liable for defamation earlier this year.

Sauer opened by denying Carroll's claim — found credible in two civil court cases finding Trump liable of defamation and sex abuse — and asserting Trump had never met Carroll before she raised her claims.

But Sauer was swiftly shut down by Second Circuit judge Denny Chin who warned Sauer he was fighting an uphill battle.

"Off the bat, Judge Denny Chin emphasizes Trump's uphill climb: 'It's very hard to overturn a jury verdict based on evidentiary rulings... So why should we order a new trial here?'" reporter Adam Klasfeld said.

Sauer and the Second Circuit panel launched into a rapid back-and-forth debate about evidence presented in the January trial — namely the Access Hollywood tape in which Trump boasts of his ability to grope women without consent or consequence — only to find himself again shut down by Chin.

"Mr. Sauer, you're talking so fast," Chin said. "You could slow down a little."

Sauer was forced to apologize and explain, "It's an important case, and I'm passionate about it."

Appellate panels famously don't give a shit for your passion.  In fact, the more dispassionate, the better.  They rule on points of law, as indicated by the opening remark that overturning a jury verdict on evidentiary rulings is very hard to do.  Appellate courts don't review questions of fact.  Period.  (The infamous case of Justice Alito notwithstanding, in the "praying football coach" case.)  They can review questions of law about whether evidence should have been admitted at trial, but the hurdle there is then proving the improperly admitted evidence was so prejudicial a new trial must be ordered.  That's what Judge Chin was getting at.

Sauer was clearly playing to an audience of one; the one in the courtroom paying his fees.  Which is pretty much the definition of taking the client's money and staying just on the side of ethical behavior.  I don't mean to imply Sauer is unethical; but he's really pounding on the table here, because he has neither the law nor the facts on his side. He doesn't really seem to have grounds for an appeal, except Trump demands one anyway.

Got to give Roberta Kaplan credit for playing to that auidence of one, too, with far greater aplomb and less effect on her client's case:

“Too many lawyers trying to screw in a lightbulb”

That’s the quote of the day for me from oral arguments in the Carroll case.

— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) September 6, 2024

That's her description of Sauer's argument. Dead on, IMHLO.