How do you try Donald Trump?former judge involved

When former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial begins on Monday, April 15th, presiding judge Juan Machan will have a lot on his plate. The case begins with jury selection, but judges must prepare for more tense allegations and the non-negligible task of managing a defendant who could mimic Al Pacino’s courtroom behavior in the movie. . justice for all or Abbie Hoffman The Trial of the Chicago Seven.

Jury selection is going to be ugly. The judge’s jury survey does not ask who jurors voted for in 2020. Questions are being asked about orientation, including favorite news sources, and there’s no doubt that Trump’s legal team will harshly criticize all jurors who don’t watch Fox News. The preference among Staten Islanders to vote for Trump suggests that jurors will not be satisfied unless they find in Trump’s favor. To avoid open-ended questions, judges should ask jurors most of the questions themselves and screen proposed questions from attorneys before presenting them to the jury.

During and after jury selection, Trump is expected to file further motions to delay or dismiss the case. Judges must anticipate them, set schedules for them, and do their homework on the laws that apply to them. President Trump must be allowed to produce the record and receive the correct verdict without derailing the trial. At the appellate level, judges must also be on hand. We have yet to see President Trump attempt to use the higher courts to derail the lower courts. You must be ready to make rulings if necessary so that the process does not get bogged down.

And that leaves the biggest threat to muddying up the trial: the actions of Mr. Trump and his lawyers during the trial. Here the judge should follow the police’s broken windows philosophy. If he doesn’t forgive minor infractions, he may not have to deal with major ones. However, we must be careful not to expose ourselves to excessive temptations.

It is best to consult a lawyer first. Donald Trump may feel that if he does not make the trial a showcase for his own grievances, he has nothing to lose but the presidency. For lawyers, the situation is different. Lawyers are court employees. If they ignore court orders, judges can end their careers with reprimands, fines, suspensions, or disbarment as appropriate.

Judges should discourage exaggerated challenges to evidence and insults to participants. Objections to testimony and other evidence have names such as “hearsay,” “relevance,” and “witness induction.” Judges should normally limit lawyers to mention only these names. Discipline should be progressive. If warnings are ignored, minor penalties such as fines may be imposed, and if necessary, restrictions on questioning or objections, post-trial suspension, or even disbarment proceedings. There is also gender. Lawyers should be enthusiastic, but not dismissive. It is the skill of the judge to distinguish between the former and the latter.

And it will take considerable skill to rein in Mr. Trump himself. He might start by pulling his face in front of the jury. The judge should stop Trump right then and there to prevent him from sighing, groaning, whispering, or making outright exclamations. The judge cannot let President Trump make a mockery of the trial. If they do so, they risk losing the respect of the jury.

If the problem persists after the judge has given President Trump several chances to behave, President Trump will have to resort to putting him in what we used to call the “crying room” in church. It might disappear. You can observe the proceedings in another room, but you cannot interrupt the proceedings. Most courthouses have a place where unruly defendants can see what’s going on, communicate with their lawyers, testify, and have their microphones turned off if they try to disrupt the proceedings. can also do. It would be pointless to fine Trump. Has completed. The judge cannot bind or gag him. Watch the movie Chicago 7 to see how it works. But judges must control the courtroom.

Let’s see if Judge Machan can do it. One can hope that this criminal case will be conducted civilly, but given President Trump’s approach to litigation, this hope is more of a dream and the trial will be more of a nightmare.

Thomas G. Morkauscher He is a former Connecticut Multiple Litigation Judge and former co-chair of the American Bar Association Employee Benefits Committee. He is the author of a new book, Common Flaws: Unnecessary Complexity in Courtrooms and 50 Ways to Reduce It.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own.