Though this is one of my questions. Will that matter? It’s obvious to every human being on the planet that Trump is not being sincere when he expressed remorse. But are they allowed to say that without any facts. Is it good enough for the officer to say “he doesn’t seem sincere to me” or does he need facts (like say the numerous statements where he showed no remorse at all and attacked the judge and jury, for example 
)
I haven’t found one, but I found a web site that describes in detail what is contained in a report. Now, this is for the Western District of New York, which doesn’t include NYC itself so it’s not where Trump is being sentenced, but these are state requirements set by the state legislature so I imagine this would be the same anywhere in the state.
https://www.nywp.uscourts.gov/presentence-investigation
Typically at the initial meeting, the probation officer will conduct an interview with the defendant to gather the follow information:
- family history
- community ties
- education background
- employment history
- physical health
- mental and emotional health
- history of substance abuse, financial condition, and
- willingness to accept responsibility for his or her offense(s)
During the presentence investigation, a probation officer will interview other persons who can provide pertinent information, including the prosecutor, law enforcement agents, victims, mental health and substance abuse treatment providers, and the defendant’s family members, associates and employer. The officer will also review numerous documents, which may include, court dockets, indictments, plea agreements, trial transcripts, investigative reports from other law enforcement agencies, criminal history records, counseling and substance abuse treatment records, scholastic records, employment records, and financial records.
And I can’t find an example of a NY state court presentencing report, but here is one you can look at from the State of Mississippi (PDF download link on the page):
https://www.mssp.uscourts.gov/form/worksheet-presentence-report
And here is a PDF to a generic sample presentence report that in theory could be used for any state, presented by the National Center for State Courts. (This is a direct link to the PDF.)
So those should probably give you a good idea of what such a report would look like I would think.
One thing that stands out the “No evidence of
inappropriate sexual behavior” bit, as the felon in question was just found liable for a sexual assault. What will go in that line for Trump? (Assuming the NY form has that)
Good info, @Atamasama , thank you.
I’ve only ever seen a couple of pre-sentence reports, but those were back in law school, and were redacted to protect the defendant’s privacy. But they were much the same as your examples in the linked PDF. They reported on the same things: current factors that don’t matter, current factors that do matter, chance of recidivism, any signs of remorse, etc.
In short, if Trump went off on “Biden witch hunt” and “conflicted judge,” those would have made their way into the report, and not in a good way. It doesn’t appear that he did, though.
At any rate, that linked PDF is a great example. A little different than the samples I saw back in school, but covering the same things. Thanks again!
Not in the interview itself and it doesn’t seem, based on those examples, that social media typically factors into the assessment (kinda surprising in this day and age). Though IIRC the NY law says the judge can give specific instructions to the officer to look at particular evidence, I’d be interested to know if Merchan has done that (or even if that is a privilege judges typically use)
It appears that both the Zoom interview rather than in person with the probation officer, and allowing the presence of the felon’s lawyer, were both unusual and indicative of special treatment for the orange felon:
He’s been getting special treatment all along. In some ways, it’s understandable; in others, it’s baffling. For example, why is the defendant’s lawyer sitting in on the pre-sentencing interview?
My guess, and that’s all it is, is that they’re giving him nothing to complain about. “They want me in New York for an interview, and I have to campaign!” Well, Donnie, then we’ll do the interview via Zoom. You can join us from wherever.
It seems to be unnotable for the defense to be allowed to be present:
Perhaps that’s a relatively new thing or that, generally, the defense lawyer skips out because the value add is pretty minimal relative to the cost per hour of having your lawyer present. My guess would be the latter. It’s the privilege of being able to afford to have your lawyer, even for the little stuff.
I wonder if the probation officer will interview Mary Trump. OTOH, maybe not since her views on her uncle (as a practicing psychologist) are pretty well known.
It’s more than that. My understanding is that Judge Merchan had to give permission for Blanche to be present. And I suspect that permission was given, at least in part, because the whiny orange baby would whine to high heaven if he didn’t get his way, which again speaks to special treatment.
It’s still not clear to me how 5th Amendment rights interact with the presentence questioning.
Re the legal experts who journalists interviewed about Trump’s interview, I wonder if they really are experts on how it works in New York County post-COVID.
From link previous in the thread:
Could be baloney, but sounds plausible.
As it’s voluntary he can refuse. Guilt has already been decided so there is no self incrimination happening.
I think it’s more likely they allowed the Zoom meeting because it’s a pain in the butt whenever a former president shows up when it comes to security.
Again, giving him nothing to complain about. If he wants his teddy bear—er, make that lawyer, yeah, that’s it—there, then there’s no harm in allowing that. One less thing for the whiny orange baby to whine about.
That’s not true. The presentence interview includes a lot of information that could be incriminating. Drug use, sexual misconduct, interaction with family members (which could reveal domestic abuse), and so on.
@Pleonast brings up a really good point, in that the 5th Amendment allows a person to decline to provide information that is incriminating, but Miranda also allows for the presence of an attorney to help a person be protected from self-incrimination. So I would think that having a lawyer present should be something that anyone would have a right to.
But of course I am not a lawyer and this is speculation on my part, and my ignorance as a layman might cause me to be misinterpreting all of this. And there may be a specific exception in these circumstances.
And maybe at some point there was a “Do I have to be in the same room as that guy?” request by someone… 
Is one under oath during the interview?
Let me walk something back; I’m not sure that this isn’t true. This could be privileged much like a discussion with an attorney or a doctor and not allowed to be used for new charges. And if that’s the case then you’re right, there is no chance of it being incriminating. Much the same way that prosecutors might grant immunity to a witness if they need their testimony, and that testimony would otherwise incriminate the witness.
And if that’s true, then it also would mean that you don’t have to allow a lawyer to be present.
Again, I’m an ignorant non-lawyer giving an unprofessional opinion.
*While the dip for Trump isn’t quite a cliff, “losing 7 percent of your supporters can be decisive. In recent polls, Mr. Biden either leads or is within two points of Mr. Trump in states and districts worth the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. A potentially crucial sliver of Mr. Trump’s former supporters — 3 percent — now told us they’ll back Mr. Biden, while another 4 percent say they’re now undecided.” (Politico)
Most Republicans are standing by their man. But 10% of Republicans, and 25% of independents, in a [Reuters/Ipsos poll] But 10% of Republicans, and 25% of independents, in a [Reuters/Ipsos poll] are now less likely to vote for Trump. …
Then, on Thursday, during an interview with KNXV, a Phoenix ABC station, Trump repeatedly declined to rule out prosecuting Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the hush-money payment case to court.
He reiterated the idea that retribution is called for in a fawning interview conducted by Dr. Phil over the weekend.
*TRUMP’S ALLIES ECHO TRUMP’S CALL FOR RETRIBUTION AND REVENGE
While it is ‘special treatment’ I suspect the Court is fine with it as it avoids all the disruption Trump’s presence would have on all the other people conducting business at that time and location.