Last week, a motion for a mistrial was made on behalf of Donald Trump in his current civil fraud case taking place in New York, with the grounding argument that presiding Justice Arthur Engoron was exhibiting bias. The logistics of the motion, especially the claim of an inappropriate relationship between the judge and his principal law clerk, are detailed on the court’s official document.
The defense argued that the law clerk’s political contributions to Democratic committees, as reported by conservative outlet Breitbart, were deemed inappropriate and therefore challenge the expected neutrality of the courtroom. However, Justice Engoron’s order denying the mistrial motion clears this matter.
The Justice discredits the expert affidavit provided by Trump’s lawyers by claiming that, “legal arguments are for counsel to make, and for judges to decide,” thereby marking it unnecessary and unpermitted. He further notes, the regular contribution limits did not apply to money used to purchase tickets to campaign events substantiating it within the ethical and legal permissible limit.
Continuing his rebuttal, Justice Engoron emphasized his fundamental right to consult his law clerks, dismissing insinuations of undue influence by his staff. He also defended his practice of referencing media coverage about the case in his alumni newsletter, asserting that he neither wrote nor contributed to any of the articles flagged by the defendants.
In reaction to the motion, the Attorney General’s office urged the court to permit full briefing to avoid possible contention before the Appellate Division. However, Justice Engoron rejected this proposition and stated he could not conscientiously sign an order with no grounds of merit. The trial continues to progress.