Former President Donald Trump is once again toeing the line with the legal system, this time choosing to publicly antagonize, yet another judge and his family through his extensive social media channels. This is not the first instance; a similar situation presented itself a few months ago when Letitia James was trying a business fraud case against him. This time, however, it looks like Trump is set to repeat his actions in an upcoming trial brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. This reported behavior raises eyebrows in the legal community.
Judge Juan Merchan will preside over this new case. In a move reminiscent of his previous trial, Trump has again employed social media to attack the presiding judge, this time including the judge’s daughter in his verbal onslaught. These actions, though far from diplomatic, leave the audience to wonder if, this time, his tactics will achieve a different outcome.
Historically, such approaches have not proven fruitful for Trump. Evidence points to his prior interaction with the presiding judge in the James case. After the public antagonization, the former president found himself on the losing end of the verdict, which resulted in a colossal sum of about 350 million dollars. As my previous article states, “picking a fight with a presiding judge” is not highly advisable.
The crux of the issue, however, extends beyond the realm of mere advice. In this case particularly, it is important for Trump to remain in Judge Merchan’s good graces throughout the trial. As explained in the New York Post, the prosecutor needs to show that the business records were altered with the intention to conceal another crime in order to transform this misdemeanor into a felony. The judge, in this instance, would singlehandedly decide whether to proceed on a federal law basis and ask the jury to debate the intention behind the alterations in business records.
Trump’s social media assailment against the judge and his family does not bode well for his position in these proceedings. Should the judge remain unbiased and pure to his duty, as is highly likely, Trump’s antagonistic approach could work substantially against him. At the least, it does little to inspire the judge’s goodwill.
The verdict of this trial remains to be seen. Notwithstanding, past experience serves as a stark reminder that attacking a judge while one’s case is under consideration may not be the most prudent strategy. However, as with any legal situation, due process will prevail and the outcome will be determined in the court of law.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and later oversaw litigation, compliance and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy. For further inquiries, you can reach him at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.