An attorney for Donald Trump has been vindicated after being previously accused of not checking a legal box to allow a jury to determine a trial's outcome.
Alina Habba, a Trump ally who has represented him in various instances as his legal battles have accumulated, was widely chastised and claimed to not have requested a jury trial as part of New York Attorney General Letitia James' $250 million civil fraud lawsuit against the former president, his adult sons and the Trump Organization.
But New York Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing the trial and said at its inception that "nobody asked" for a jury trial, amended his comments during Wednesday's proceedings.
"I believe what happened here is that [James] clearly checked off non-jury," Engoron said, according to The Messenger's Adam Klasfeld. Trump's legal team never requested a jury trial.
Engoron added that a checked box as part of a request from Trump's legal team for a jury trial wouldn't have mattered anyway because the relief was equitable.
"It would not have helped to make a motion, nobody forgot to check off a box," Engoron said.
"Thank you, your honor. Press, did you hear that, I didn't forget to check the box," Habba said in court, according to CBS News' Graham Kates.
Newsweek reached out via email to Habba for comment.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Newsweek via phone that according to New York state law and the claims made by James' office, a defendant—Trump and company in this case—are seeking equitable relief rather than money damages based on accusations and the potential for companies to be shut down and business licenses to be revoked.
The system, which is combined in the United States, originally stems from British common law where separate legal and equitable courts acted separately.
Even though James has requested a civil judgment, Rahmani said that Engoron confirmed under state law that it is considered equitable relief.
"The judge is saying that it wouldn't have mattered...Typically, a civil lawsuit is a legal and not equitable one but apparently it is the opposite in this case," he said.
Elie Honig, a CNN senior legal analyst and former federal and New Jersey prosecutor, said last week that a jury trial, in this case, would have "depended on nuanced legal determinations about the nature of the remedy sought by the attorney general."
"But Trump's legal team absolutely could have requested a jury, litigated the issue, and then appealed had they lost," Honig added.
Habba previously defended her stance on Newsmax, saying that the case was filed under New York Executive Law 63(12)—which she described as a "very narrow, not appropriately used section of the law" for consumer protection where a jury is generally not required.
That statute essentially provides the New York attorney general with broad powers to investigate and prosecute civil fraud cases.
"Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply...for an order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any fraudulent or illegal acts," the law states.
