Trump’s lawyers’ ‘professional ethics or obligations’? Um…
It’s there self-survival obligation he is appealing to, the ethics and obligations wording is a not so thinly veiled threat to their license to practice law.
A hypothetical jury that finds out new information after the trial but before rendering a verdict that might affect their verdict. That is being compared to the judge in this bench trial finding out new information after the trial but before the verdict. The hypothetical jury situation would likely result in a mistrial because the new information wasn’t subject to the rules of evidence or cross examination and they aren’t supposed to consider any facts that were not introduced during the actual trial in court. Is there a similar problem when the judge is the one deciding?
No, because the Trump case in front Judge Engoron is a civil matter, not a criminal prosecution. The AG NY is the plaintiff under the state statute.
I assume the prosecution for perjury would be handled by the DA NY? I don’t think the AG NY has any criminal jurisdiction? But as always, IANAUSL, and I’m just relying on what I’ve read in the papers.
Also, as mentioned above, this issue came up during the trial, in front of Judge Engoron, when Weisselberg bunked after the Forbes article came out. So it’s not a new issue that came up after trial. How much can Judge Engoron take that into account? Dunno.
It sounds like the judge is considering simply disregarding all of his evidence. So that must alleviate at least some of those concerns.
But the admission of guilt under the plea bargain came up after trial.
This whole thing is a snarl. Engoron already ruled on some questions, in favor of the plaintiffs, back in about August. This trial was in part to establish the scale of the first ruling (how much should be awarded) as well as to make a ruling on some other questions. So what we need to know is whether Weisselberg’s testimony is applicable to the unresolved questions or to the already-ruled part.
Right, I forgot about that distinction. So many trials, so many charges.
Latin is underrated. And such an accurate translation. Thank you. 
A trial isn’t over until verdict is rendered.
I misspoke, I meant to say that the plea bargain was new information that came up recently after Engoron began deliberations, so that’s why he’s asking about it now rather than earlier in the trial.
I don’t know what the rules are in the NY courts for considering info that comes to light while the case is still under reserve. Interesting to watch.
I’m very confident Engoron will not be making any procedural blunders. The fact that he wants the info, and makes clear that he may well use it in his decision, tells me that none of that will offend the law.
I tried keeping a spreadsheet but it grew unwieldy.
If Judge Engoron throws out the entire testimony of Weisselberg, will it help trump or hurt him? I assume hurt him, but I’ve never heard what Weisselberg said under oath.
I would assume that Trump’s lawyers will just respond “Nope, we didn’t know anything about him lying, we called him to the stand because we assumed that he was telling the truth, he lied to us, too, we’re the real victims here”.
So, would there be any consequences for them claiming that?
They’d be gambling on there not being yet another string of emails somewhere (say, in the possession of the guy who’s currently making a deal) showing that they suborned perjury.
But Engoron also said not to disclose anything to him that would “violate their professional ethics or obligations”. We can joke about them not having any ethics, but can they hide behind that? Even if someone got a subpoena to force them to turn everything over, could they still say, if asked why they didn’t turn it over when originally asked, that it violated their ethics or obligations? Or is this a bit more black and white? That is, are there rules regarding what is and isn’t covered by that statement?
I have to assume that, being a witness, they couldn’t claim he was a client as well, so they at least they shouldn’t be able to hide behind attorney-client confidentiality.
They’re gambling on that regardless. If evidence comes up that they suborned perjury, then it doesn’t matter what they say right now.
I suppose that would be one of the answers to my question, discussing a bribe, I assume, wouldn’t be covered by any sort of ethical obligations. I kinda wonder if, even though Engoron sent them that letter, if there’s a subpoena in the works to keep things moving.
Correct. No jury here. My point was that juries aren’t permitted to consider evidence not raised in testimony. At least, as far as I know. I was asking whether the same holds true with judges at a bench trial. It would be hard to “unknow” something learned after both sides have rested or make a case that the new info had no impact on your findings.