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.
I would like to see your source. The is the NY court system, not the federal court system, and it is a civil case not a criminal case.
In either case there have to be admissible facts to support the judgment on the record and in a jury trial the instructions, both those accepted and those denied, provide a legal foundation for the appeal.
It scheduled to conclude December 20th. I think there are some 125 witnesses. It’s a long trial. Hopefully his lawyers are better at winning classes then filling out forms and letting his client know they forgot to request a jury so he doesn’t write, “I’m not allowed a jury?”
The case is over. This is the penal section. What the punishment will be.
I was slightly mistaken, most states do require a unanimous verdict for civil trials, in NY State they do require unanimous vote, they require a 5/6ths verdict, meaning 2 of 12 in a jury trial, so in this case Trump would need to convince 2 people.
No live thread for the kangaroo court today?
Is that why Trump goes thru lawyers like they are a dime a dozen.
What gives you the confidence the NY appeals court and Supreme Court would be any less biased than this judge ??
What you said is true, but that’s not the issue, did judge follow the law in NY State, who knows at this point, everyone is just speculating, I suspect the judgement is completely bogus.
People are awfully confident that the NY Appeals Court and Supreme Court would be far less biased than the judge in this case.
You are correct. The State of New York is the Plaintiff and it has NO damages. The MSJ was only a partial MSJ and apparently established elements of 1 - 4. Trial will be about element #5 - damages. If the State cannot satisfy that element at trial, the whole charge of civil fraud gets dismissed.
Findings of fact are reviewable, but generally only on a no evidence basis, i.e., there was no evidence to support the finding. If you have 100 witnesses testify that the Earth is round and one witness testify that the Earth is flat, then a finding by either a judge or jury that the Earth is flat would not be overturned on a no evidence basis.
There are, however, more avenues to appeal a jury verdict than a bench (judge) verdict. For example, a jury must be given a jury charge with specific questions, instructions and definitions. An appeal can frequently be based on errors in the jury charge, e.g., the instructions did not accurately reflect the law or the judge erred in failing to give an instruction, definition or question requested by the defense. A judge does not have to answer specific questions and his verdict will be upheld if there are any facts on which the verdict could be based.
Your comments on this thread reveal you as quite the toadie troll. Looking forward to the zot.
Good question. My source (which I cited) broadly establishes the fallacy that jury verdicts are less frequently reversed than bench verdicts.
The following analysis of state-tried civil cases is from CourtStatistics.org:
Civil Trials on Appeal - Part 1
•
How often are trials reversed or affirmed?
National Center for State Courts • Richard Y. Schauffler, Project Director • Nicole L. Waters, Author
Decisions rendered by judges or juries in state trial courts do not necessarily signify the end of court involvement
in a dispute. In fact, litigants appealed their 2001 trial court decision in approximately 15 percent of general civil
trials in 46 of the nation’s most populous counties. The purpose of Part I of this two-part Caseload Highlights series is to explore intermediate appellate court activity following general civil jury and bench trials.
The data reported in this issue are from the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2001 – Supplemental Study of Civil Appeals, conducted by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) with funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS). The NCSC compiled appellate data on all general civil trials in which a litigant sought appellate review. In
total, 1,204 appeals took place in 33 intermediate appellate courts (IAC) and 13 courts of last resort (COLR). Since
most appellate activity occurred at the IAC level, this Caseload Highlight series is to explore intermediate appellate court activity following general civil
jury and bench trials.
The data reported in this issue are from the Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2001 – Supplemental Study of Civil Appeals, conducted by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) with funding from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCSC compiled appellate data on all general civil trials in which a litigant sought appellate review. In total, 1,204 appeals took place in 33 intermediate appellate courts (IAC) and 13 courts of last resort (COLR). Since most appellate activity occurred at the IAC level, this Caseload Highlights will focus on those appeals.
This 2001 report covers 20 states. The reversal rate was 15% for jury verdicts and 5% for bench verdicts.
In “Implications and Conclusions,” the author submits:
“This study represents the first supplemental effort to a nationwide examination of civil litigation by tracking general civil trials through the appellate process in state courts. In this Caseload Highlights, we have examined factors associated with appeal rates, appellate caseload
composition, outcomes on appeal, and appellate court processing times.
“Litigants use the appeals process strategically, as
leverage for ongoing settlement negotiations or to wait out the opposing party, in addition to the more typical pursuit of correcting alleged trial court error. This is evident considering approximately one-third of appeals were not decided on the merits of the appeal, but withdrawn or dismissed for procedural reasons.
“Appeal rates were low, affirmance rates were high, and more reversals were obtained after a jury verdict as compared to a decision by a judge. These findings are consistent with two theories proposed by Clermont and Eisenberg, who examined civil appeals in federal appellate courts. They found that appellate courts were deferential to trial courts (i.e., a high affirmance rate), and expert adjudicators were less likely to be reversed (i.e., a lower reversal
rate of bench trials than jury trials). These findings also illustrate evidence of a substantial advantage to defendants on appeal, especially in jury trials.”
tl;dr: State civil cases tried by jury have three times the reversal rate of those tried by bench. (15% vs. 5%.)
Possibly because a Motion for Summary Judgment (”MSJ”), like the partial one that was granted by the Judge establishing liability, takes place completely outside of trial and jury and is solely up to the judge. If a MSJ is not filed, then the the jury would have to decide the issue of liability. The problem is not Trump’s lawyers not asking for a jury, it is that the state filed a MSJ and the Judge granted it over Trump’s opposition.
Interesting, thanks. Although the data is old, probably still good.
Frightening prospect, being tried by twelve Democrats who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty!
A jury in NYC would convict him of anything.
Perhaps Trump’s lawyers think there is a clear legal flaw the judge is overlooking. In that case would a jury really help Trump? I mean the jury is instructed on the law by the judge right?
>>You realize this same judge is the same person who valued Mar-a-Lago at 18 million
The $18 million was the assessed value by the local tax authority. It came from the Trump organization’s records.
None of that will happen. Trump will no doubt be found liable, and he will appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court. That's it.
State court systems are separate from the federal court system.
I think you’re right. If the judge errs in his verdict he would have also erred in his instructions to a jury. To my way of thinking dropping a jury cannot have improved the chances of a verdict being reversed.
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.