re: Breaking: Kari Lake loses trial to overturn Arizona Governor election - Vows to appeal

The issue is who is correct - the lawyer in an article who didn’t argue the case, or the judge.

If the judge applied the wrong standard (by requirement of specific intent), then Kari Lake gets a “de novo” review of the evidence presented at trial by the appeal court - who can sustain the judge’s ruling or reverse it on one or more grounds. If it reverses, can either decide the question itself based on the evidence in the record, or remand to the trial judge with instructions to reconsider it based on the “correct” standard which may or may not require additional evidence to be entered.

If the trial judge applied the “correct” standard (ie specific intent to change result of the election), then Kari Lake’s only hope for a reversal is if there was no evidence to support the trial judge’s findings. There was evidence to support the judge’s findings, I just don’t believe the evidence was “credible.” The appeal court cannot Re-weigh the evidence or reverse the trial judge bc it thinks the evidence was not credible. Credibility determinations belong to the trial judge.

FWIW - I have no idea if the trial judge applied the wrong standard. The statute does not contain a “specific intent” requirement in its terms (I don’t see one in the text). However, the trial judge cited and relied upon an Arizona Supreme Court decision to determine that such a standard existed. As I understand it, Lake’s lawyers relied on the same case to argue that they can get a do-over. Thus, I don’t see how they can now argue that the old Arizona Supreme Court case doesn’t apply.

If there was some legislative intent documented to overrule the specific intent requirement then maybe. There are also other rulings (for example the judge’s decision to dismiss the 8 claims that did not get tried) that could be subject to a reversal.

I don’t know the legal basis of the judge’s decision to dismiss those 8 claims - but if he made an error interpreting the law on any of them - the case could get reversed. Interestingly some of these were raised pursuant to the US constitution. So, if the trial judge or the appeal judge’s apply the wrong COTUS standard - Lake could go to SCOTUS. If the SCOTUS doesn’t want to get involved then they’ll say “writ denied.”

I’m not sure which judge decides on 9th Circuit cases to go before it. Any of you PoliBarristers know? (i think AZ is 9th).

All that said - while I disagree with the trial court’s decision, Lake’s appeal is DOA if the judge’s assessment of the law was correct as decided by Arizona courts. The factual review standard is nearly impossible to get, and I don’t think it’s met here. Her lawyers will argue it, but the appeal court will probably say, they defer to the trial court.