Gil: Stuff like this is why I’m skeptical though, not a priori

if your take was: 1) this was likely to be a hung jury because it’s an unusual case And 2) your take now is that Merchan won’t send him to jail because usually first time fraud offenders don’t get jail consider that you’re maybe doing something psychologically motivated rather than analysis

FWIW I did not think 1 and think 2, although not super confidently, p(prison sentence) is probably like 0.3

Stuff like this is why I’m skeptical though, not a priori

That was in the context of contempt during trial

I understand! Still

I don’t think there is any “still” and Merchan explained his thinking pretty thoroughly in his two written orders

Merchan made exceptions for Trump as a presidential candidate. That alone is noteworthy.

yeah, in terms of speech

And it’s not like there is good comparable precedent for whether someone in his position would have been thrown in jail for contempt anyway. And it’s just a completely different context.

I will also say that one reason you don’t put a defendant in jail before the trial is because you’re pretty sure you’re sending him to prison after

I read that statement about the same way I read a judge telling me I did a great job arguing

Ah yes, Kaitlain, notoriously even handed and not at all repping a former employer. Come on.

I wish I could remember my source but I do recall it being one I trusted. They commented on how not charging him for contempt could very well work out beneficially in respect to the appeals process. Indicates the defendant wasn’t treated unfairly but rather favorably.

Post