Trump’s increasing court outbursts come with increasing risks — for all

Trump’s increasing court outbursts come with increasing risks — for all

During the E. Jean Carroll civil defamation trial in January, the judge issued a warning to Donald Trump. Carroll’s attorneys had complained that Trump repeatedly injected commentary from the defense table, notably calling the proceedings a “witch hunt.”

“Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial,” Judge Lewis A. Kaplan said, adding: “I understand you are probably very eager for me to do that.”

Trump shot back: “I would love it. I would love it.”

Whether Trump literally wants such an outcome is up for debate, but it’s readily apparent that he’s going to tempt serious sanctions as his first criminal trial begins. While plenty have focused on his apparently nodding off during the proceedings in the Manhattan hush money/election interference case, the more potentially consequential moments have come when he has offered these kinds of interjections.

And they show no sign of abating. The situation could leave New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan with some difficult decisions to make about how to treat the high-profile defendant. And if he doesn’t sanction Trump, it could serve to reinforce that, despite his claims to victimization, Trump is actually getting special treatment not usually afforded a defendant.

On Monday, Trump was witnessed sarcastically chuckling when Merchan noted that he would be in charge of sentencing should Trump be convicted — and then again when Merchan said he would conduct a fair trial.

On Tuesday, Merchan reprimanded Trump for another interjection. This time, Trump said something that the judge suggested appeared to be directed at one of the prospective jurors.

After the prospective juror was dismissed, Merchan quickly addressed Trump attorney Todd Blanche. Merchan noted that the prospective juror was about “12 feet from your client” and that Trump was “audibly uttering something” toward them.

“He was audibly gesturing, speaking in the direction of the juror,” Merchan said. “I won’t tolerate that. I will not have any jurors intimidated in this courtroom. I want to make that crystal clear.”

Blanche responded, “Yes, your honor,” and spoke to Trump as instructed by the judge.

The scene was familiar. Not only was Trump threatened with expulsion that January day in the Carroll case, but a week earlier he also tangled with the judge at the end of his New York civil fraud case, drawing a rebuke from that judge.

After Trump’s attorneys made a surprise request to allow their client to address the court, Judge Arthur Engoron asked Trump to “promise to just comment on the law and the facts … and not go outside” those things.

Trump responded, “When you say, ‘Don’t go outside of these things,’ we have a situation where I’m an innocent man. I’ve been persecuted by someone running for office.” He called it a “fraud on me.”

Engoron noted that a deadline was approaching for a break in the proceedings. “You have your own agenda, I certainly understand that,” Trump said. “You can’t listen for more than one minute.”

Engoron urged Trump’s attorney to “please control your client.” He soon cut off Trump’s remarks.

The dilemma for the courts in these outbursts is apparent.

Merchan told Trump as proceedings were beginning Monday, “If you disrupt the proceedings in any way, the law permits the court to exclude you from the courtroom and commit you to jail and continue the trial in your absence.”

Actually following through on that threat is not only politically dicey — by giving Trump the kind of supposed persecution he suggested he craves with his “I would love it” comment — but legally dicey, as well. In criminal proceedings, defendants have a constitutional right to be present that is stronger than it is in civil cases. It can be forfeited if defendants act out, but convictions can be overturned if it’s found that the defendants were deprived of their rights.

Still, the stakes are increasing. It’s one thing to be an unruly defendant and create chaotic scenes in the courtroom; it’s another to say things to influence or intimidate a juror, as Merchan suggested Tuesday’s outburst might have been intended to do. That could bear directly on Trump’s fate in a case in which one juror can prevent his conviction.

The jurors in the case are anonymous, but Trump has made little secret of his desire to make life difficult for anyone involved in adversely deciding his legal fate.

Throw in Trump’s defiance in the face of gag orders — another major subplot in the Manhattan case — and the legal system’s ability to handle actually trying Trump might be the second-biggest question, behind whether he’s guilty.