Donald Trump’s lawyers have been thwarted in their bid to put an immediate end to the former US president’s civil fraud trial.
The judge did not rule on the request but indicated that the trial will go on as scheduled on Monday with Donald Trump Jr returning to give evidence as the first defence witness.
Mr Trump’s lawyers had asked Judge Arthur Engoron to cut the trial short and issue a verdict clearing Mr Trump, his company and top executives including Mr Trump Jr of wrongdoing.
They made the request at the halfway point in the trial of New York attorney general Letitia James’s lawsuit, arguing that state lawyers had failed to prove their case. Ms James alleges that Mr Trump and other defendants duped banks, insurers and others by inflating his wealth on financial statements.
Mr Engoron said the defence’s arguments seeking what is known as a directed verdict were “taken under advisement” and did not address them further when he returned to court on Thursday afternoon to rule on another matter.
In that ruling, Mr Engoron gave Mr Trump’s lawyers a victory, allowing them to call several expert witnesses in an attempt to refute evidence that Mr Trump’s financial statements afforded him better loan terms, insurance premiums and were a factor in making deals.
The judge, who has had a history of ruling against Mr Trump, has signalled interest in seeing the trial to its conclusion, asking defence lawyers for witness schedules and pencilling in closing arguments close to Christmas.
In seeking to short-circuit the case, Mr Trump’s lawyer Christopher Kise argued that state lawyers had failed to meet “any legal standard” to prove allegations of conspiracy, insurance fraud and falsifying business records.
“There’s no victim. There’s no complainant. There’s no injury. All of that is established now by the evidence,” Mr Kise argued.
State lawyer Kevin Wallace responded that there was no basis to end the trial, saying the evidence is “more than sufficient to continue to final verdict”.
Mr Trump, giving evidence on Monday between barbs for his adversaries, denied wrongdoing and said lenders were “extremely happy” doing business with him. If anything, he said, his financial statements underestimated his wealth and the value of assets such as his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.
Mr Kise implored Mr Engoron to give special weight to Mr Trump’s evidence, citing the ex-president’s decades of experience as a property developer. When talking property, “if my choices were Donald Trump or attorney general James, respectfully, I would go with Donald Trump,” Mr Kise said.
He argued that the Democratic attorney general, in pursuit of a political opponent, was trying to “substitute her judgment for that of the banks and, frankly, for that of someone who has been involved in the real estate industry for 50 years”.
Defence lawyer Clifford Robert pressed the judge to dismiss claims against Mr Trump’s elder sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. He argued that state lawyers had failed to prove that the sons, whom Mr Trump appointed to run his company when he went to the White House in 2017, worked on the ex-president’s financial statements.
Mr Robert said the sons, who signed off on some documents attesting to their father’s wherewithal, “acted appropriately” in trusting accountants and lawyers for assurance the documents were accurate.
“My clients have been dragged into what is essentially a fight between the attorney general and their father, but here we are,” Mr Robert said. “The time has come that we need to put an end to it.”
Mr Wallace countered that Mr Trump and his sons each signed documents saying that they were responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements, which Mr Engoron has already ruled were false and misleading.
Thursday’s arguments came a day after Mr Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump gave evidence as the state’s last witness. She had unsuccessfully fought a subpoena.
Directed verdict requests are common in civil trials, though they are somewhat infrequently granted. In Mr Trump’s trial, Mr Engoron is deciding the outcome, rather than a jury.
Before the trial, Mr Engoron ruled that Mr Trump, his company and other defendants committed fraud by exaggerating his net worth and the value of assets on his financial statements, which were used to obtain loans and make deals.
Mr Engoron’s pre-trial fraud ruling came with provisions that could strip the ex-president of such marquee properties as Trump Tower, though an appeals court is allowing him to remain in control of his holdings for now.
The state rested its case on Wednesday after six weeks of evidence from more than two dozen witnesses. Ms James is seeking the return of what she says is more than 300 million dollars in fraudulent gains and a ban on Mr Trump and other defendants from doing business in New York.
Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump gave evidence last week. When Mr Trump Jr returns to the witness box on Monday, he will be questioned by defence lawyers including his own. Trump company executives, outside accountants who worked on Mr Trump’s financial statements and bank executives who worked on his loans have also provided evidence as state witnesses.
Mr Kise emphasised that lender Deutsche Bank made its own adjustments to the asset values listed on Mr Trump’s financial statements, giving “haircuts” to the estimates for Trump Tower and other properties, and decided to lend him hundreds of millions of dollars anyway. Adjustments amounted to 2 billion dollars in some years, documents showed.
Mr Kise also attacked Mr Trump’s former lawyer-turned-foe Michael Cohen’s credibility. He said Mr Cohen’s “pathetic performance” undermined the state’s case when he backtracked from his initial evidence that Mr Trump had directed him to boost the value of assets to “whatever number Trump told us to”.
Pressed on cross-examination during his October 25 evidence, Mr Cohen conceded that Mr Trump never told him to inflate the numbers on his personal statement – though Mr Cohen later said Mr Trump signalled it indirectly, and “we understood what he wanted”. Mr Robert asked at that point for an immediate directed verdict, which Mr Engoron denied.
