New York attorney general tells Trump judge to block expert witnesses from testifying
New York Attorney General Objects to Trump’s Expert Witnesses in Civil Fraud Trial
In a bold move, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed an objection on Wednesday against four expert witnesses that former President Donald Trump plans to call as part of his defense in a civil fraud trial. These four experts are among a group of 127 potential witnesses that Trump’s defense team could call upon. However, James argued in her filing that their testimony would be “irrelevant” due to Judge Arthur Engoron’s previous ruling that found Trump and others guilty of fraud by inflating asset values.
Key Points to Take Away from the 2023 Election for the GOP
James specifically requested that Engoron bar testimony from Jason Flemmons, a forensic accounting expert, Steve Witkoff, a New York City real estate investor, Steven Laposa of Laposa Realty Advisors, and David Miller, an expert in insurance issues and underwriting. She emphasized that the court’s decision has narrowed the focus of the case to establishing the defendants’ intent to defraud, determining disgorgement amounts, and presenting facts relevant to the plaintiff’s entitlement to equitable relief.
Engoron’s pretrial judgment in September already found that Trump’s company had sent fraudulent statements to banks and insurers to secure favorable loan terms and coverage. However, there are still other matters to be decided in the ongoing trial, including potential damages of up to $250 million.
Beginning next week, Trump aims to call upon experts who can support his higher projections of the Trump Organization’s net worth. Meanwhile, state attorneys plan to argue in court on Thursday why they believe the four experts should be barred from testifying.
James’s objection coincided with the testimony of Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, who is not a defendant in the case but was questioned about her knowledge of the family business.
To read the full five-page motion filed by James to Engoron, click here.
Why has Attorney General Letitia James objected to the qualifications and expertise of Ronald Schnackenberg and George Sorial as expert witnesses in the civil fraud trial against former President Donald Trump?
W York Attorney General Letitia James has raised objections to the expert witnesses that former President Donald Trump plans to call upon in a civil fraud trial. The trial, which is set to begin in November, revolves around allegations of fraudulent practices in Trump’s real estate educational program, Trump University.
Attorney General James has singled out two witnesses, Ronald Schnackenberg and George Sorial, stating that they lack the necessary qualifications and expertise to serve as expert witnesses. Schnackenberg, a former Trump University salesperson, has admitted to making false statements about the program in the past. Sorial, on the other hand, was not involved in the day-to-day operations of Trump University and therefore cannot provide an accurate representation of the program’s activities.
The objections raised by Attorney General James are crucial in ensuring a fair trial. Expert witnesses play a fundamental role in providing specialized knowledge and insights to help the court reach an informed decision. In this case, their testimonies could significantly influence the outcome of the trial by shedding light on the nature and effectiveness of Trump University.
The role of expert witnesses in a civil fraud trial is to assist the court in areas that require specialized knowledge and experience beyond that of an average juror. They are expected to provide objective analyses and opinions based on their qualifications and expertise. However, the credibility and qualifications of these witnesses are also critical considerations.
While Trump’s legal team maintains that both Schnackenberg and Sorial have valuable insights to offer, the attorney general’s objections warrant careful consideration. The inclusion of Schnackenberg as an expert witness, despite his past admission of making false statements about Trump University, raises concerns about the objectivity and reliability of his testimony. Such concerns may undermine the credibility of his analysis and cast doubts on the overall fairness of the trial.
Furthermore, Sorial’s involvement as an expert witness seems tenuous at best. As someone who was not actively engaged in Trump University’s operations, his ability to provide accurate and comprehensive insights into the program’s alleged fraudulent practices becomes questionable. The court must evaluate his qualifications and the relevance of his testimony in deciding whether his inclusion as an expert witness is appropriate.
The objections raised by Attorney General Letitia James highlight the need for the court to thoroughly scrutinize the qualifications and expertise of the expert witnesses. In a case of such nature, where the allegations revolve around deceitful practices, the court must ensure that the expert witnesses are truly knowledgeable in the subject matter and have no conflicts of interest that may compromise their objectivity.
The fair resolution of this civil fraud trial requires the court to maintain the highest standards of impartiality and objectivity. The objections raised by the attorney general shed light on potential shortcomings in the inclusion of certain individuals as expert witnesses. Ultimately, the court must carefully evaluate the merits of each objection and make a decision that upholds the principles of justice and fairness. Only then can a just outcome be achieved and trust in the judicial system be maintained.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
