Judge Engoron’s Handling of Donald Trump Comes Under Scrutiny

It was a particularly bruising encounter. One one side was former President Donald Trump. On the other was his judicial nemesis, Judge Arthur Engoron, who is presiding over Trump’s New York fraud trial and has already ruled that Trump committed fraud.

From the witness stand on Monday, Trump called Engoron a “hater” and accused him of being part of a Democratic Party conspiracy against him.

“You and every other Democrat district attorney, A.G., and U.S. attorney were coming at me from 15 different sides, all Democrats, all haters,” Trump said.

Trump, his two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, as well as the Trump Organization, are co-defendants in the civil case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who accused the former president of inflating his net worth by billions of dollars to obtain benefits such as better bank loans and reduced tax bills.

Engoron accused Trump of making “speeches” from the witness stand and threatened to dismiss Trump and make “every negative inference I can.”

Raising his voice, he “beseeched” Trump’s lawyer, Christopher Kise, to keep Trump under control. While their encounter was heated, acerbic and hostile, legal opinion is divided on how well Engoron handled the situation.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and co-founder of the West Coast Trial Lawyers legal firm, told Newsweek that Engoron was too soft on Trump.

“Judge Engoron did little to control the former president,” Rahmani said. “It is the judge’s responsibility to control their courtroom, so Engoron asking Trump’s lawyers to control Trump was weak, to put it mildly. Despite making threat after threat, Engoron showed little courage to actually follow through.”

He said that Engoron has been holding back on striking Trump with a contempt charge.

“There is understandable hesitation to be the first judge to hold a former president in contempt, but Donald Trump got away with much more than any other litigant could have,” Rahmani said.

Engoron correctly warned that he had the power to dismiss Trump as a witness, Rahmani added.

“Judges have broad power to control the presentation of evidence in their courtroom. They can strike testimony, exclude witnesses, and draw adverse evidentiary inferences or instruct jurors to do the same,” he said.

Federal attorney Colleen Kerwick told Newsweek that Engoron was correct in keeping order in the court. She said that, as there is no jury in the case, Engoron does not have to worry about unduly influencing jurors during his spats with the former president.

“A judge is tasked with, amongst other things, presiding over proceedings and ensuring that order is maintained,” she said. “They are well within their rights to ask an officer of the court [an attorney] to control their client and to draw negative inferences from a party’s behavior in court. As it’s a bench trial, the judge does not have to be cautious about influencing the finders of fact as there is no jury.”

New York University legal professor Stephen Gillers agreed that Engoron was within his rights when threatening to dismiss Trump as a witness.

“Engoron could have dismissed Trump as a witness if Trump had persisted in refusing to answer questions,” Gillers told Newsweek. “Then Engoron could have drawn negative inferences from that refusal.”

If he had to go that far, Engoron would effectively be telling Trump: “Since you refuse to answer the questions, I assume this is because the answers would have been bad for your case and I will consider that in my verdict.”

Last month, Engoron ruled that Donald Trump, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump committed fraud in their property evaluations. The court will decide on six other accusations, including falsifying business records, insurance fraud and conspiracy claims.

Trump is the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

Newsweek reached out to the New York Supreme Court and Donald Trump’s attorney by email on Wednesday for comment.