President Trump has now been waiting 293 days for a decision from a panel of five judges regarding a significant $454 million civil fraud ruling secured by Attorney General Leticia James last year.
The oral arguments for Trump’s appeal on September 26, 2024, seemed to garner some sympathy towards the Republican presidential candidate, at least according to observations made by journalists and legal experts.
Judge Dianne Renwick, one of the members of the panel, is thought to have a favorable stance towards Trump. Legal professionals not associated with Trump often refer to Renwick as a “political animal,” a term acknowledging her credentials but also indicating potential biases due to her appointment by Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul.
“It certainly seems that politics could be influencing the judgment here,” expressed Bennett Gershman, a law professor at Pace University who is openly critical of Trump.
“It’s evident. Is it wrong? Yes. Does it happen? Absolutely.”
The judges on the panel have the ability to “pending” decisions without giving any explanations, say experts who are familiar with how the appeal process works.
This lengthy delay raises concerns that the chief judge might be stalling the ruling to hinder a favorable outcome for the president, according to a legal source who has been tracking the case.
Gershman, who previously argued the case and interacted with the judges during a campus event, pointed out that it’s hard to gauge exactly what the judges are contemplating but emphasized the abnormality of such a delay for a ruling.
“It doesn’t seem too complicated for a question to take 293 days to resolve. One judge might be holding it up, or it could be several judges,” he noted.
“Judges are human after all and might bring their own ideologies or biases into their deliberations, which could inadvertently affect their judgment.”
Gershman mentioned that he personally considers Trump guilty, suggesting the ruling from Justice Arthur Ngoron should stand despite repeated assertions of bias against the president and his associates.
Nevertheless, he remarked, “This is an extraordinary case, scrutinizing actions of a sitting U.S. president. There are clearly personal and political motivations that might complicate the judges’ judgment, even subconsciously.”
Several attorneys who are well-acquainted with the workings of the first division, one of the state’s four appeals divisions, chose to remain anonymous while discussing the unusual length of the delay.
According to one attorney who doesn’t represent Trump, historical data over the last 18 months reveals that the average time for a verbal ruling to be issued is nearly 30 days following oral arguments. However, written decisions tend to take longer, averaging around 140 days.
This legal source commented, “Trump’s appeal is currently the only one pending in the first division that has been in the pipeline for several months, and it doesn’t seem close to a resolution.”
According to another legal expert, “The presiding justice has a political angle. I’d be surprised if politics didn’t play a role here.”
Judge David Friedman, another panel member, seemed to align closely with Trump’s arguments during the oral discussions in September. There is speculation that the other two judges may share his viewpoint, but oral arguments don’t necessarily predict the final outcome.
Friedman, who is 74 and was appointed by Republican Governor George Pataki in 1999, is set to retire from the bench at the end of the year.
“Based on the arguments, I believe he holds the majority,” said an observer.
In April, Trump reportedly was told by Hochul during a meeting in the Oval Office, “I will control the judge.”
This individual remarked that Hochul demands assistance from Trump on various issues, while simultaneously maintaining this legal matter over his head. “It’s a form of intimidation.”
Requests for comments from Hochul’s office, as well as spokespeople for James and the first department, went unanswered.
A representative from Trump’s legal team claimed that the $18 million penalty is exaggerated and “worth ten times more.”
This spokesperson also criticized the judicial process, implying that it has been a drawn-out “witch hunt” against Trump.
The ongoing delay has resulted in hefty attorney fees and bond costs that Trump may struggle to recoup.
Once the panel makes a ruling, the losing party will likely seek another appeal to the New York State Court of Appeal, which may have the final say unless there’s a federal claim involved that reaches the U.S. Supreme Court.
There’s no consensus regarding the reasons behind the protracted nature of the ruling from the first division.
A legal expert from Manhattan suggested that the most plausible explanation for the delay could be objections from one or more judges, indicating potential disagreements that could extend the deliberation process considerably.
Columbia University law professor John Coffee provided another possible explanation, speculating that lengthy appeals could arise from the complexity surrounding major sanctions.
“While split panels can take time, 293 days seems excessive for that alone,” Coffee remarked.
“The real issue might be around the damages involved, as the Court of Appeals often gets involved in that area, rather than the specifics of the appellate process.”
One attorney mentioned that the unusual delay might eventually lead to more open discussions among the judges. “So far, they’ve kept things pretty close to the vest,” he noted. “But you know how it is—eventually, people will start talking. I think the truth will come out sooner or later.”
