In an intriguing series of correspondence between Donald Trump’s legal representative and Justice Arthur Engoron, the court tried to navigate an unusual request for the former president to present the closing arguments in his ongoing New York fraud trial. On January 4, Chris Kise, former Florida Solicitor General, and Trump’s current lawyer, nonchalantly mentioned that Trump intended to present argument at the trial’s closing. Defending pro se in closing arguments is untraditional except for individual defendants in some cases, which added a surprising twist to the already complex situation.
NYAG’s office promptly noted the unusual request and clarified that under the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR 321(a)), a party represented by an attorney may not personally act in the case, except with the court’s consent. The correspondence continued, illuminating that Justice Engoron could grant an exception if it wouldn’t disrupt the judicial process. However, this proposal was contingent on Trump’s agreement to adhere to specific ground rules about permissible discussion, including relevant material facts, respect for all parties involved, and no admission of new evidence or irrelevant comments.
Kise later responded, indicating concerns of ambiguities in these preconditions, which could lead to misinterpretation or unintended violation. His retort included the notion that preventing Trump from commenting on the Attorney General, in this case, the plaintiff, was untenable.
Engoron clarified his stance, stating that comments on opposing parties’ arguments were permissible, but not character attacks. He asserted that the courtroom procedure’s normal rules governing closing arguments couldn’t be violated. Engoron stressed that his limitations were non-negotiable and imposed in his absolute discretion.
Surprisingly, Kise failed to respond within the given timeframe. Subsequently, Justice Engoron denied the odd request for Trump to make the closing arguments, prompting Kise to inquire about an extension. This followed a peculiar leak suggesting Trump planned to deliver the closing arguments, even though approval from Justice Engoron hadn’t been secured.
Amidst the back-and-forth, Kise requested a delay of the closing argument due to a family bereavement. Despite this personal tragedy and without responding to the issue on ground rules, Kise declared that Trump would be speaking the next day. However, Justice Engoron insisted on immediate confirmation that Trump would agree to the limitations for presenting his argument. The saga continued with Kise arguing that the process was very unfair and that the court was preventing Trump from speaking on vital matters.
After missing several extended deadlines, Engoron finally assumed that since Trump was unable, or unwilling, to comply with the set terms, he would refrain from speaking at the trial’s closing. As justice Engoron concluded this tiring saga, one can only empathize with a reasonable man pushed to his limits. The full coverage of this trial provides an illuminating remark on how not to get a judge to grant unusual requests.