Posted on 10/02/2023 10:27:25 AM PDT by Miami Rebel
Former President Donald Trump has infamously attacked the judge presiding over his civil trial in New York for business fraud with regular frequency as the case has moved forward, so legal observers were surprised to learn that his legal team had declined to request a jury trial — leaving the ultimate verdict solely in that one judge’s hands.
New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit against the Trump Organization seeks penalties of $250 million and to ban Trump and his adult children from doing business in New York.
Judge Arthur Engoron already dealt a sharp blow to Trump last week, ruling in favor of James’ motion for summary judgment and finding the ex-president liable for the core claim in her lawsuit that Trump had committed fraud by massively inflating the value of his assets by billions of dollars and exaggerating his net worth in order to secure financing and close deals.
Engoron’s order also stripped the business certifications of the Trump Organization and related defendant corporate entities and directed a receiver to be put in place to “manage the dissolution” of those businesses. “Questions remain as to how the receiver would dissolve the properties; whether the ruling would impact properties outside of New York state, including Mar-a-Lago; and whether the Trumps could transfer the New York-based assets into a new company out of state,” CNN reported.
Unsurprisingly, Trump reacted to this ruling with an angry, all-caps rant on his Truth Social account blasting Engoron and James for their “politically motivated Witch Hunt” — and interestingly included among his complaints, “I am not even allowed a Jury!”
Trump again went after Engoron in his comments before the trial began on Monday morning, calling him a “rogue judge” and saying the trial was “a scam and a sham.”
Contrary to Trump’s complaint that he was “not even allowed” to have a jury, he absolutely did have the power to demand a jury trial, if only his attorneys had checked a single box on the front page of a standard New York court document.
In a civil case, the parties all have the right to request a jury; the only reason a trial would proceed without one is if both sides decline to demand one. Here, the prosecutors declined to so in their Notice for Trial, as seen in the screenshot below of a section of the first page, by checking the box next to “Trial without jury.”
Monday morning as the trial began, Engoron confirmed that he would be the finder of fact instead of a jury because “nobody asked for” a jury trial.
It’s not entirely clear why Trump’s attorneys didn’t request a jury trial. As Los Angeles Times senior legal affairs columnist Harry Litman noted, “[i]t’s incredibly easy” to do so and only requires you to “just check a box on a form.”
“Hard to believe that Trump understood his lawyers hadn’t done it when he’s been savaging the judge who is now the factfinder in his huge fraud trial,” Litman added.
As the trial began, commentators speculated whether Trump’s attorneys were engaging in some sort of strategy because they didn’t believe they would like the options they’d find in a New York City (i.e., liberal-leaning) jury pool or if they really did just forget to check the little box.
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig told Mediaite he had heard these theories and “nobody has any way to know that,” but he did find it “interesting” that this might have been a deliberate strategy. “Wouldn’t shock me,” he added.
Honig and Caroline Polisi, a white-collar criminal defense attorney and legal analyst, both appeared on CNN Newsroom Monday morning to discuss the case.
“Another really important thing, the fact that this is not a jury trial changes everything,” Honig emphasized. “It changes everything about the public statements. It changes everything about the way you’d give your opening statement in the court. It changes everything about what witnesses you’re gonna call, how you cross-examine them, because now you’re making your case not to, in this case, six civilians, but to — not just a judge, but the judge who knows this case, he is probably the foremost expert on this case. So, that really changes the entire atmosphere here.”
CNN anchor John Berman commented on “how brief the opening statements were compared to what we are used to.”
“Yeah, the judge doesn’t have to get up to speed on anything here,” Polisi agreed, and noted how Engoron had already “looked up the receipts” as the finder of fact and ruled that there was fraud, so now the case would be focusing on “the issue of intent” on the remaining counts.
Yep, especially because they can probably provide plenty of evidence to show this particular judge was biased.
What will happen is the judge will rule against Trump, then it will go up to the next level or beyond, and when it is overturned, that judge will be disbarred and removed from office for the fact that the judge is/was NOT IMPARTIAL.
That is the end goal here IMO.
I don’t think it’s the grounds, I think its the time it takes to hold the trial.
allow President Trump to get back to campaigning....until the next trial...and the next...and the next....
Is it? Not sure how.
“Much easier to appeal a bench verdict. A jury would have convicted him anyhow.”
You are absolutely correct. Jury verdicts are near sacred on appeal; a judge’s decision, not so much.
“And no victim or complaint.”
Lying on a loan application is a crime. Whether or not the bank fails notice it at the time. if you falsify your income when trying to get a mortgage on your house it’s still a crime even if you make your monthly payments.
Why did he say he wasn’t allowed to have a jury?
I dunno why he said it. Maybe his lawyers screwed up and didn’t want to let him know.
Precisely what I said. “reasonable doubt” isn’t involved, nor is unanimity of a jury, so there is no advantage to a jury trial.
In New York state?
Seems unlikely.
“What will happen is the judge will rule against Trump, then it will go up to the next level or beyond, and when it is overturned, that judge will be disbarred and removed from office for the fact that the judge is/was NOT IMPARTIAL.”
Good luck with that. I can’t find a single case in which that was an outcome. That’s a pretty far-fetched strategy....And even if it were valid, not choosing a jury doesn’t do anything to enhance its chances of success.
Unlikely. Trump has been involved in many lawsuits. For sure, he would have discussed the jury trial issue with his lawyers.
From the US Justice Dept., Bureau of Justice Statistics (2005):
“Courts reversed a somewhat higher percentage of appeals of jury trials (40%) than appeals of bench trials (25%).”
!. He wanted a jury trial. His lawyers screwed up.
OR
2. He didn’t want a jury trial. His lawyers followed his instruction.
If #1 then it’s his lawyers’ fault. If #2 then he has no reason to complain about the lack of a jury.
Under NY law, the parties in a civil action are allowed to submit to the judge proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which allows counsel an opportunity to define, if not control the narrative. In addition, the trial judge is required to articulate the factual basis for its decision.
With few exceptions, jurors are not required to justify their verdicts, and even if the trial judge or appeals court disagrees with the verdict, it will allow the verdict to stand, even if it would have reached a different conclusion.
In other words, judicial decisions resulting from a bench trial are much more transparent than jury verdicts and as a result, there is a greater chance of overturning a bench decision than a jury verdict on appeal..
Who is the injured party in this? Doesn’t seem like there is one.
This seems totally backwards to me.
Looking at the form, there are two boxes: one labeled "Trial By Jury Demanded" and one labeled "Trial No Jury." Constitutionally, a trial by jury is a right that can be waived, not waived unless demanded. I know that the 7th amendment is not incorporated into the states, but the NY State Constitution has rules for trials by jury and no jury.
What happens if neither box is checked? Shouldn't the default be a trial by jury, as this is the bedrock principle our constitutional republic?
-PJ
And when it comes to real estate asset valuations, there is no way to “lie” about something that is subjective by definition. That’s why lenders do their own appraisals instead of accepting the borrower’s estimates at face value.
Much easier to appeal a bench verdict. A jury would have convicted him anyhow.
........
You are correct IF attorneys challeng appealabe misdeeds of judge timely.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.