Trump Trials: Trump won’t return to the stand in New York civil case on Monday – The Washington Post
It should be a busy week in the criminal and civil cases the 45th president is fighting in federal and state courts. U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan is weighing whether to temporarily halt pretrial proceedings in Donald Trump’s D.C. criminal case while he appeals her ruling that he is not immune from prosecution, and Trump’s defense team in his New York civil business fraud trial is expected to wrap up its presentation of evidence.
Have questions on the trials? Email us at perry.stein@washpost.com and devlin.barrett@washpost.com and check for answers in future newsletters.
We got some news Sunday, even before the workweek began. Trump has asked Chutkan to pause the entire D.C. election-obstruction case (a stay, in legal terms) while he appeals her latest decision on presidential immunity. Special counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors replied late Sunday afternoon, saying a stay is unnecessary and that the trial should remain on schedule for a March 4 start date. The issue of time could be among the most critical in the coming months.
One thing that won’t be happening: Trump will not be returning to the witness stand at his civil trial, which revolves around accusations by the New York attorney general that the former president and his company for years fraudulently inflated the value of his real estate empire. His lawyers said last week that he would be testifying; on Sunday, our colleague Shayna Jacobs reports, they said that testimony is no longer necessary.
Now, a recap of last week’s action.
The details: Four counts related to conspiring to obstruct the 2020 election results.
Planned trial date: March 4
What happened: Trump’s legal team said they would appeal Chutkan’s ruling rejecting his claims of presidential or constitutional immunity. That appeal is significant because it could take months to resolve, potentially delaying the former president’s trial. How the courts handle the never-tested claims of immunity will be important; perhaps even more consequential — given that Trump is the front-runner for the Republican 2024 presidential nomination — will be how much time they take to decide.
Here’s where they stand this week:
A slimmed-down version of Chutkan’s D.C. gag order is back in effect. Nestled deep in Friday’s decision on that issue was an important signal: the appeals court judges indicated they have no interest in being the ones to delay the trial, writing that they expect it to take place well before the 2024 election.
The gag order stemming from the New York civil trial, upheld by a New York appeals court, also remains in effect.
Trump’s spokesman declared the D.C. gag ruling at least a partial victory for the former president. It’s unclear if he will appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court or try to go en banc. What’s that? Why it’s our …
En banc: We promised when we launched this newsletter there would be no Latin, and so far we have kept that promise, because “en banc” is French! It means “on the bench,” and is used to describe a particular type of appeal.
In federal courts, a randomly assigned panel of three judges typically fields the first round of an appeal. Lawyers can then ask for reconsideration before a full complement of the judges on the appeals court. That is called hearing the case en banc.
The details: Trump faces 13 state charges for allegedly trying to undo the election results in that state. Four of Trump’s 18 co-defendants have pleaded guilty.
Planned trial date: None yet
What happened last week: The ripples of this case reached to Nevada, where a grand jury charged six Republicans who claimed to be presidential electors in 2020 and submitted certificates to Congress falsely asserting that Trump had won in their state.
The charges are forging documents, and submitting fake documents. Listed as a witness is Kenneth Chesebro, a pro-Trump lawyer who has pleaded guilty in Georgia. Nevada is the third state, after Michigan and Georgia, to file such criminal charges.
The details: Trump faces 40 federal charges over accusations that he kept top-secret government documents at Mar-a-Lago — his home and private club — and thwarted government demands to return them.
Planned trial date: May 20
What happened: Trump and prosecutors are sparring over the complex legal process surrounding the use of classified evidence in criminal trials, with the former president’s lawyers arguing that they should be allowed to review a government filing meant just for the judge’s eyes.
The dispute is another illustration of how the fights in this case often revolve around the schedule and the possibility of delays, and Trump’s insistence that he has the right, as a former president, to see all the classified evidence.
The details: 34 charges connected to a 2016 hush money payment.
Planned trial date: March 25
Last week: No significant developments. But down the street at the Manhattan civil courthouse, Trump’s lawyers presented witnesses who defended the Trump Organization’s property valuations.
Q. If Trump wins the election and the cases have not yet concluded, will he still have to go to trial?
A. Remember there are a lot of what-ifs that need to happen before this scenario could happen, and we are not in the business of predicting the future. But hypothetically, Trump winning the presidency does not automatically mean the cases against him would vanish.
In Georgia and New York, he faces state charges, and a president does not have authority or pardon power over state cases, though Trump’s lawyers have argued that if he wins reelection, he should not be forced to answer the Georgia case until he finishes his term in … 2029.
And while a reelected Trump would appoint his own attorney general to run the Justice Department, he would not necessarily be able to force that person to drop cases against him. It’s also possible Trump could try to appoint an acting attorney general to short-circuit the need to get Senate approval for his nominee.
If Trump’s first term was any lesson, his Justice Department does not always do what he wants them to do.
Ann E. Marimow and Rachel Weiner contributed to this report.
Some electors from Biden states who cast votes for Trump say they wouldn’t do so again
Special counsel says Trump encouraged violence, “sent” Jan. 6 mob to U.S. Capitol
Trump appeal raises prospect of Supreme Court showdown
As a defendant and candidate, the former president embraces fringe Jan. 6 theories