NEW YORK, NY – The civil trial involving former U.S. President Donald J. Trump has concluded, and now Judge Arthur Engoron is preparing to deliver his judgment and announce the penalties. However, the process has faced delays due to new developments involving the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer (CFO). According to The New York Times, the CFO, Allen H. Weisselberg, has been in negotiations with Manhattan prosecutors regarding charges of lying under oath during the trial. These charges were revealed after Judge Engoron’s deadline for the conclusion of the trial passed, raising questions about the impact of Weisselberg’s dishonesty on the proceedings.
Judge Engoron, seeking clarity on Weisselberg’s testimony, emailed Trump’s lawyers, Chris Kise, Alina Habba, and Clifford Robert, to inquire about their knowledge of the CFO’s statements. The judge emphasized that as the judge of credibility, he must ensure that perjury is not tolerated in his courtroom. In response, Habba stated that she was not Weisselberg’s criminal lawyer and therefore had limited information about his testimony in the criminal tax fraud case. While Habba’s reply was snarky, citing professional ethical obligations as a reason for her inability to provide further details, it raised questions about the veracity of her claims.
Kise took a more measured approach, arguing that court decisions should be based on trial evidence rather than media speculation. Robert went even further, asserting that the New York Times article did not provide a sufficient basis for the court to question Weisselberg’s testimony. Judge Engoron quickly responded, expressing his disappointment with the misleading and mischaracterizing nature of their replies.
In his email, Engoron clarified that he was not looking to initiate a wide-ranging debate; instead, he simply wanted the lawyers to address the possibility of perjury by Weisselberg. He refuted Robert’s claim that he had any intention of taking judicial notice of the New York Times article or its contents, highlighting his commitment to making decisions based on the evidence presented in court.
Engoron emphasized his duty to consider any confession or guilty plea from Weisselberg regarding perjury and how it would impact his final decision. He reminded Robert of the defense lawyer’s obligation to disclose any falsities offered by their client as stated in Rule 3.3(a)(3).
The judge further expressed his frustration with the defense lawyers’ repeated attacks on his impartiality throughout the case. He firmly asserted that if someone pleaded guilty to perjury in his courtroom, it was his business to know about it. Engoron made it clear that the trial was not being reopened, but he stood firm in his pursuit of justice.
While the exact penalties for Trump and his co-defendants, including his adult sons, are yet to be determined, it is likely that the lawyers’ dismissive attitudes have influenced Judge Engoron’s judgment. The delays caused by Weisselberg’s potential perjury have raised questions about the credibility of the former president and his organization in the eyes of the court.
As the trial continues, Engoron’s unwavering commitment to upholding the law and maintaining integrity in his courtroom serves as a reminder that no individual, regardless of their status, is above the pursuit of justice.