Main menu

Pages

Trial Against Trump by New York Attorney General Faces Uncertain Status

 


A judge in a New York state appellate court has temporarily halted the civil fraud trial involving former President Donald Trump and the New York attorney general's office, casting doubt on whether the trial will commence as scheduled next month. This decision was made in response to an emergency request by Trump, his adult sons, and the Trump Organization. They requested that the appeals court slow down the legal proceedings until Judge Arthur Engoron, the lower court judge overseeing the case, makes a crucial ruling. This move has raised questions about the trial's start date, which is set for October 2 with a $250 million fraud lawsuit hanging in the balance. The trial may proceed as planned if the lower court matter is resolved promptly and the appeals court concurs.

New York Attorney General Letitia James expressed confidence in their case, asserting readiness for the trial. In June, a New York state appellate panel ruled in favor of Trump regarding the statute of limitations on some of the transactions, provided they were completed by specific dates and had tolling agreements for the defendants. The panel tasked Judge Engoron with determining the scope of defendants bound by the tolling agreement, but this determination has not yet been made.

Both Trump's and James' legal teams have submitted pretrial motions, with James seeking a judgment that Trump's financial statements were false and misleading, and Trump's lawyers attempting to have the case dismissed, mainly based on the statute of limitations argument. Oral arguments for these motions are scheduled for September 22. Trump's attorneys initially asked Judge Engoron to postpone the trial until he rules on the statute of limitations, but this request was denied. Subsequently, they sought the intervention of the appeals court to halt the case. While the appeals court did not agree to halt the case, it did agree to put the trial on hold. If Judge Engoron decides on the statute of limitations issue during the September 22 hearing, it may potentially resolve the matter before the appeals court needs to intervene.

Comments