Yes. This is the reason people often invoke their 5th amendment rights during a civil trial. While this might hurt the defendant of a civil trial, it will at least protect them should they face a criminal trial later.
And what does that choice of analogy say about the dynamics within casa Hedonia? 
Actually, the current 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 $250 million in fines. The first summary judgement (currently under appeal) would remove the Trump org’s business licenses in New York and bar them from doing business in the state.
It’s worth calling out @Euphonious_Polemic for having clarified that the current Letitia James/Trump trial is NOT simply a penalty phase:
[bolding mine]
So the determination of “guilt or innocence” under the Civil Fraud charge isn’t yet complete.
As a practical matter, though, I’m not clear on how granularly the penalties could be assessed, or if – effectively – there’s an all-or-nothing aspect to this.
I’m assuming the claims/charges tie to individual properties, and that fighting the judgment on remaining claims still has the potential to reduce the money judgment and Equitable Relief penalties Trump could potentially face.
Though … it’s possible that prevailing in remaining claims could save him some money judgments but have no effect on being stripped of his ability to do biz in NYS.
Maybe
ETA: cite for the top part:
Upon the foregoing documents, it is hereby ordered that defendants motion for summary judgment is denied, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is granted in part, and plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is granted in part, all as detailed herein
Has Team Trump formally applied for a mistrial?
Trump’s defense lawyers put in an appeal last month for the Sept 26 summary judgement which both canceled the business certifications of the Trump Org, and ordered a receiver to be put in place to manage the dissolution of the corporate entities.
Was this during his testimony?
(Not trying to be snarky with this request and the post preceding; just too much going on to follow easily.)
I think it was. From CNN:
After a lengthy monologue from Donald Trump where he attacked the state of New York and said businesses are leaving because of cases “like his,” Kevin Wallace of the New York attorney general’s office calmly said to the former president, “I promise you Mr. Trump I’m trying to get you off the stand.”
“Great, I’m sure you are,” Trump replied.
Trump complained of “election interference” and a “very hostile judge,” referring to Judge Arthur Engoron.
Trump then said, “I don’t have a jury. And I want a jury," he said.
Trump has complained about a lack of a jury throughout the trial.
Experts have said his attorneys could have litigated a request for a jury ahead of the trial, although the chances that he would have gotten one were slim.
It’s also noteworthy that the defense attorneys did not have any questions. They wanted to get Trump off the stand as quickly as possible to prevent any more damage.
I guess I’m fuzzy, here.
There’s the judgment and there’s the penalty assessed – two separate issues.
There’s the current trial and there’s the partial Summary Judgment and penalties already assessed, and currently under appeal.
Do we have any insight into how the fight in the current trial could affect the issues already decided and under appeal?
IOW, is there any practical crossover between the stakes in the current trial and the stakes in the last trial, currently under appeal?
Good question. I suspect not, and that these (prior summary judgement/appeal and the current trial) are two separate issues, but perhaps a law talking person could give us a more definitive answer.
I hope Habba cut the judge a little slack today, after all she made it clear she wouldn’t tolerate his disrespect. You really can’t raise your voice to someone like Alina Hobba and not expect to suffer the repercussions.
Trying to parse a bit further:
The Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action (the Plaintiff prevailed via Summary Judgment) was Fraud under Executive Law § 63(12).
Full stop. That’s big.
The penalties awarded to the DA via Summary Judgment were threefold:
any certificates filed under and by virtue of GBL130 by any of the entity defendants or by any other entity controlled or beneficially owned by Donald J Trump, Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, Allen Weisselberg, and Jeffrey McConney are canceled
the parties are directed to recommend the names of no more than three potential independent receivers to manage the dissolution of the canceled LLCs
that the Hon. Barbara S. Jones (ret.) shall continue to serve as an independent monitor of the Trump Organization until further Court order
ETA: this is what’s currently under appeal.
So, yeah. The Causes of Action currently pending are
six remaining claims in the lawsuit, including allegations of conspiracy, falsifying business records and insurance fraud.
The remedies sought include:
James is seeking $250 million in penalties and a ban on Trump doing business in New York.
I think that’s right, and I think that means these two situations are not as entangled as I imagined them to be.
Just don’t consult with Stormy Daniels.
That makes sense to me. When dealing with employee relations issues, if I have an employee who refuses to take any responsibility and is belligerent, I might recommend a more severe sanction and/or termination than I would for someone who showed a little contrition and recognition that they did something wrong.
It’s an obviously flip answer, but I don’t know how judges respond to that. One option is to take it literally and at face value, which is real bad for Trump’s kids and a lot of other people. One option is to treat it as a flip answer to a question under oath, which sounds to me like it’s contempt of court. Does the judge have full leeway to decide how to treat it? If the judge treats it as Trump’s sincere and literally true testimony, is there any grounds for appeal?
I would think it would be pretty shaky grounds for appeal to try to say “My client was just playing word games, and really, nothing he said while giving testimony under oath should be taken as literally true.”
But it came with a rider …
It’s obviously an untrue statement, though, because of course not everybody is responsible for identifying fraud.
So I’m content calling it perjury.
Since we’re mostly on pause awaiting Ivanka … I’d just like to remind people of Engoron’s assessment of Trump’s “Can’t Touch This” Disclaimer:
However, defendants reliance on these “worthless” disclaimers is worthless
the worthless clause does not say what defendants say it says, does not rise to the level of an enforceable disclaimer, and cannot be used to insulate fraud as to facts peculiarly within defendants knowledge, even vis-à-vis sophisticated recipients.
As I’m fond of saying, it’s heartening to know that – save for Aileen Cannon – these judges are sober and clear-eyed.