He testified for under three minutes. But former President Donald Trump still broke a judge’s rules on what he could tell a jury about writer E. Jean Carroll’s sexual assault and defamation allegations, and he left the courtroom Thursday bristling to the spectators: “This is not America.”
Testifying in his own defense in the defamation trial, Trump didn’t look at the jury during his short, heavily negotiated stint on the witness stand. Because of the complex legal context of the case, the judge limited his lawyers to asking a handful of short questions, each of which could be answered yes or no — such as whether he’d made his negative statements in response to an accusation and didn’t intend anyone to harm Carroll.
But Trump nudged past those limits.
That would have led to a mistrial, and further served to delay justice. What Judge Kaplan did was absolutely the right thing, and in the best interest of all parties involved.
stupid question here : why would it have led to a mistrial? if he is the one on trial and he starts running his mouth, its words directly from him. so they can absolutely be used against him (since he said them in court). if he sits there and makes claims (for example) “i was in hawaii at the time” and there are plenty of records to prove he wasn’t in hawaii… that can be used against him … he knows he is under oath and he freely gave the testimony … so it can’t be argued that he was coerced into giving the information…
again… i say stupid question because i’m sure there is a way that it could lead to a mistrial , i just don’t know what it is.
With respect to witness testimony, it could be something like this:
It’s complicated.
That’s not a stupid question, it is a good question and a valid one. First, I am not a lawyer. However, my layman understanding is this:
In a jury trial there are strict rules regarding testimony specifically so that information is not introduced into direct evidence or via testimonial evidence that could serve to unduly prejudice a jury. Obviously ALL testimony is prejudicial in some capacity in the sense that it is intended by its very nature to change the opinion of the fact finders in a legal procession, in this case a jury and a civil trial.
These rules for what can or cannot be introduced into evidence via testimony are litigated before trial, and even during trial because there are often disagreements between the parties about what constitutes unduly prejudicial testimony. The judge rules on that, which determines what can and cannot be introduced.
If Donald Trump was allowed to bloviate about anything he damn well pleased on the stand, especially regarding information that had already been ruled inadmissible, his own lawyers could then turn around and call for a mistrial on the grounds that the judge had already ruled that information to be inadmissible. Granted that is unlikely to happen, but it would not be unprecedented nor does the judge want to leave that as an ambiguous issue on appeal.
So, in order to maintain fairness in the legal process the judge preordaines what information a jury can hear in order to avoid that situation in the first place.
Pretty sure the deal is that the judge’s main job is to ensure that the conduct of the trial follows the file of law. If it can be shown that he didn’t do that, anyone can call for a mistrial. But I’m a software engineer, not anyone who has any training in this stuff.