On Friday, New York Judge Arthur Engoron declined a mistrial motion filed by former US President Donald Trump in a civil fraud case against the Trump family and Trump Organization, an event that’s worth noting for its ongoing contributions to the recent history of both corporate and political accountability. Read more about the proceedings at Jurist.org
Trump sought a mistrial, alleging misconduct by the court officials, including Engoron, who he accused of bias. The allegations stemmed from articles published in a high school alumni newspaper referencing the case – articles Engoron categorically stated he did not contribute to or write – and political donations made by his law clerk. Trump also accused Engoron of “co-judging” with his law clerk.
The judge, however, effectively parried each of these accusations. In relation to the alleged political donations, he cited Judicial Opinion 98-19, which allows court employees to make contributions in excess of the general $500 limit when running for judicial office themselves. He also confirmed that while a judge and a law clerk share a relationship founded on “trust and confidence,” any suggestion of ‘co-judging’ was entirely unfounded.
In his ruling, Engoron stated plainly that the motion for a mistrial was “utterly without merit,” thereby permitting the case to continue “in the interest of justice,” as set forth in the New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (Section 4402).
Still, it is likely that Engoron’s decision will face appeal. Interestingly, Trump succeeded in a recent appeal concerning a gag order that had been issued within the same civil fraud case. More details are available at Jurist.org.