This is a game of chicken, and Engoron – thus far – hasn’t blinked.
I say good on him!
The verdict is not in question here. It has been issued. The judge has already ruled that the defendant is liable. The defense failed to properly request a jury trial, so it fell upon the judge to deliver the verdict. Trumpco is liable for fraud, end of story. That much is probably beyond appeal. What is in question now is the degree of punishment for that fraud. If the judge structures that part of the ruling well, it may be difficult for the defense team to find an edge to pull at on appeal.
That is absolutely what is happening.
Move forward in time. The judge gives a harsh ruling, Trump is destroyed financially, his businesses considered criminal enterprises that must be be shut down ASAP. (Hypothetically, I have no idea what will happen.) His lawyers will appeal citing bias and impropriety on the part of a vindictive judge.
Now look at two potential situations the appeals court can review.
A: The judge repeatedly rebukes Trump, silences him, eventually tosses him in jail for defying him.
B: The judge mostly lets Trump speak within reason, stoically takes insults and gives Trump a lot of leeway in what he says, as long as Trump isn’t attacking the staff the judge relies on to make the court function.
Which of those two situations makes it less likely that the appeal is successful?
Exactly.
I don’t think this is entirely correct.
On September 26, 2023, Engoron issued a summary judgment holding that the AG had sufficiently documented that Trump and his business had for years committed fraud against banks, insurers and others. Trump org’s New York business licences were removed, and businesses were order to be put into the hands of a reciever.
This trial is about the State’s six claims not covered by the summary judgment, which include falsifying business records and conspiracy - a guilty verdict would include a $250 million in fines.
Also, " Former President Donald Trump did not request a jury for his New York civil fraud trial, but even if he had asked for one, the answer would’ve been “no,” a judge said Wednesday."
His New York businesses have already been ordered shut down. (Sept. 26 summary judgement) Trump org needs to appoint a receiver to run the businesses until they are dissolved. (This was stayed on Oct 6 pending the outcome of Trump’s appeal of the summary judgement)
The holder of the James McGill chair at the University of American Samoa Law School (go Land Crabs!).
Someone should remind him he needs a “Criminal Lawyer” NOT a criminal lawyer.
As I explained it at home….
The judge has already decided Trump’s going to get spanked. The trial is just being held to determine what implement to use and how many whacks he deserves.
So I assume the pending request for mistrial is performative? All in service of the appeal?
He also said “I want a jury”. As if thats how its done.
Okay, Emperor Trump! One jury comin’ right up! 
I wish that had been recorded. I imagine it was said in the manner of a five-year-old who didn’t get a cookie. Arms crossed, bottom lip out, “I want a jury.”
As explained above:
On September 26, 2023, Engoron issued a summary judgment holding that the AG had sufficiently documented that Trump and his business had for years committed fraud against banks, insurers and others. Trump org’s New York business licences were removed, and businesses were order to be put into the hands of a reciever.
This trial is about the State’s six claims not covered by the summary judgment, which include falsifying business records and conspiracy - a guilty verdict would include a $250 million in fines.
I asked this earlier but I think it got buried.
Legally, if Trump, during one of his rants inadvertently said something incriminating that was not relevant to the civil trial, could that be used as evidence by other prosecutors in other cases against Trump or his accomplices?
Would this be one reason to let him rant?
Strong agree, and wanted to quote the full text in admiration of @Cervaise summarizing it concisely with razor sharp snark.
Yes. (
for Discourse.)
Of course it could, it’s a matter of public record taken under oath and other prosecutors can and will take advantage of this. Since it is under oath he can not claim that it was “just bluster” without committing perjury. And yes, letting him rant while under oath is a gold mine of self incrimination.
IMO, this trial was effectively over as soon as Trump testified that “everybody” within the Trump Organization is responsible for identifying internal fraud.
One point that keeps coming up in my mind about this trial is that since TrumpCO has been found guilty of fraud (pending appeals) and the current trial is about the fines and possibility of being barred from doing business in the state - isn’t the efforts to dodge responsibility a clear sign that no, they should be barred? I mean, if I was in court, and everyone from the top down denied doing any sort of due diligence, I for one would see it being in the state’s interest to bar such businesses.
Yes, I know in Trump world, it’s all about having privilege but no responsibility, and that the court must work within the constraints of how the law is written, but to see all the executives blatantly disavow responsibility… damn, I hope those sections of testimony get quoted if and when said companies are dissolved and barred after the appeals are done.