As Trump treats trials like rallies, judges are exploring how to rein him in
Donald J. Trump doesn't change. Judges do.
Two weeks ago, a New York judge, Arthur F. Engoron, allowed Mr. Trump to deliver closing arguments in person in his civil fraud trial, as long as he stuck to the facts and avoided a “campaign speech” in court. Mr Trump stormed through the restrictions, repeating his well-known claim of a “political witch hunt” and attacking the judge to his face.
Last week, after a lawyer down the street at the defamation trial of E. Jean Carroll complained that Mr. Trump was muttering “scam” and “witch hunt” loud enough for jurors to hear, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan sternly warned him about it . Although he had the right to be present, “that right can be forfeited – and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive.”
Ms. Carroll's lawyers found no reason to sue again.
The justices' different approaches to the storm that poured into their courtrooms — and the different outcomes — could provide lessons beyond the two New York cases. They could provide guidance for the judges overseeing Trump's four possible criminal trials, who will want to prevent the 45th president from turning his legal proceedings into a political spectacle.
“What you have to do first and foremost is set rules and enforce them,” said John S. Martin Jr., a former U.S. District Court judge in Manhattan. “I think if the judge is strict and doesn't back down, Trump will withdraw.”
The 77-year-old Trump often finds himself in courtrooms these days, alternating those appearances with campaign stops — using both for political purposes as he seeks the Republican presidential nomination. On Tuesday, after attending jury selection in Ms. Carroll's trial, he flew to New Hampshire to begin campaigning. He then returned to court on Wednesday, when she testified, before returning to New Hampshire.
Judges regularly face defendants who are powerful public figures, such as politicians or top executives, who are used to dominating a room.
But judges, especially those on the federal courts who enjoy life terms, do not easily surrender their authority. Typically, threats of financial penalties, contempt, or even short prison sentences can calm the most unruly courtroom disruptors.
What has made Mr. Trump's appearances challenging is that he may be making the calculation that disobeying a judge or perhaps even losing a legal argument could be politically advantageous. In the defamation lawsuit against Ms. Carroll, Trump appeared to almost prompt Judge Kaplan to throw him out of the courtroom.
After his two recent confrontations with the judges, Mr. Trump held news conferences before cheering on supporters in the lobby of his building at 40 Wall Street. Standing in front of a row of American flags, he repeated his themes of personal persecution. He called the attorney general, Letitia James, who charged him in the civil fraud case, “deranged” and “a political hack.” A week later, he branded Judge Kaplan “a man who hates Trump,” and dismissed Ms. Carroll's claims. “Honestly, I'm the one who was harmed,” he said.
Both of Trump's Manhattan trials are still pending. There is no jury in Ms. James' civil fraud case in the New York State Supreme Court; Judge Engoron's ruling on whether Mr. Trump and his company are liable for a $370 million fine sought by the state is expected by the end of this month.
The defamation lawsuit against Ms. Carroll is being heard by a nine-person jury in the Federal District Court, with Judge Kaplan overseeing the proceedings. The only question is how much money Mr Trump should pay the 80-year-old Ms Carroll for defaming her after she accused him in 2019 of sexually abusing her decades earlier, and for his continued attacks in statements and on social media.
Testimony is expected to continue at least through Monday, when the former president has indicated he could testify.
Judge Kaplan, 79, was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994. He is known for his command of the courtroom and sometimes his impatience with lawyers who appear unprepared. He has presided over trials of suspects with bold names, such as Sam Bankman-Fried, the muddled cryptocurrency tycoon convicted in November, and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law and adviser to Osama bin Laden, who was sentenced to life in prison by a judge. in 2014.
The judge also presided over an earlier case brought by Ms. Carroll against Mr. Trump last spring. In that trial, a jury awarded her $5 million in damages after finding him liable for sexually assaulting her in the 1990s and defaming her in a statement other than the one that gave rise to the current case before the judge Kaplan.
“This isn't his first rodeo,” said Katherine B. Forrest, a former colleague of Judge Kaplan on the federal bench in Manhattan. “He will be very careful and thoughtful in the way he handles this situation.”
“I'm sure he thinks about when he draws lines, how he draws lines, what the lines mean and what agenda it plays,” Ms. Forrest added.
Judge Kaplan has already ruled that Mr. Trump and his lawyers cannot challenge the jury's finding last May that Mr. Trump sexually assaulted Ms. Carroll or that his statements about her were defamatory.
But if Trump causes further disruptions or is even removed from the courtroom, the trial should be allowed to proceed, said Michael B. Mukasey, who served as a federal judge in Manhattan for nearly two decades. Mr Mukasey said Judge Kaplan has a duty to ensure the jury is not influenced by extraneous matters.
“He would want to make sure they understand that neither Trump's antics nor anything resulting from them are evidence,” Mr. Mukasey said, “because they are taking an oath to decide the case solely on the basis of evidence and his instructions on the case. law.”
In state court, Judge Engoron, 74, also has long experience. A former taxi driver and aspiring musician, he regularly jokes from the bench and maintains a cordiality with lawyers and witnesses alike.
He's also a character outside the courtroom – someday filed a story with The New York Times about approaching singer Art Garfunkel, telling him “My name is art too” — and then being mocked by a friend.
But Mr. Trump and his lawyers appear to be testing Judge Engoron's good humor as the judge tries to determine whether the former president is liable for violating state laws by inflating his assets, as Ms. James, the attorney general, has argued.
When one of Mr. Trump's lawyers, Christopher M. Kise, said the former president wanted to speak during closing arguments this month, Judge Engoron said he would allow that as long as Mr. Trump agreed to the terms imposed on each lawyer are bound: stick to the facts and the law.
The former president disagreed. In open court, Mr. Kise renewed his request, prompting a sigh from Judge Engoron. “This is not how it should have happened,” he said.
Still, he allowed Mr. Trump to speak, and the former president used his five minutes to attack Ms. James and the judge.
One condition Judge Engoron imposed, however, seemed effective: He told Mr. Trump that if he attacked the judge's staffers — violated a gag order — he would be removed from the courtroom and fined at least $50,000.
During his tirade, Mr Trump refrained from attacking any staff member.
Kate Christobek And Olivia Bensimon reporting contributed. Kirsten Noyes research contributed.