In a rare moment of solidarity, attorneys on both sides of the civil fraud case brought against President Trump by New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, agree that the judge, in determining his verdict, should disregard a recent perjury inquiry of a key witness.

“OAG does not, however, believe that this development should result in any delay of a final decision,” a senior enforcement counsel for the attorney general, Kevin Wallace, wrote in his letter filed on Wednesday afternoon. 

Defense attorney Alina Habba echoed Mr. Wallace’s sentiment in her letter to the judge, writing that, “We urge you to render your decision based solely on the evidence now before you.” 

As part of her representation of the Trump Organization, Ms. Habba represents the witness in question, the longtime Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, who is also a defendant in the case. New York’s attorney general has sued Mr. Trump, his two adult sons, Weisselberg, former controller Jeffrey McConney, and ten of Mr. Trump’s companies for business fraud, claiming that the Trumps inflated real estate values and falsified financial statements in order to get better loan terms and insurance policies. All defendants have denied the charges.  

The presiding judge, Arthur Engoron, ruled in a partial pretrial decision that the defendants were indeed liable for fraud. Six further allegations and the scope of the punishment await his decree after a long trial. The verdict was expected at the end of January, but delayed after a court appointed monitor, who has been overseeing Mr. Trump’s companies for more than a year after Judge Engoron had ruled they had committed fraud, alleged new findings of possible fraud in her final assessment on January 26. The defense filed a response, calling the allegations “a joke.”       

Complicating matters even further, the New York Times reported last week that Weisselberg is negotiating a plea-bargain with Manhattan’s district attorney Alvin Bragg. The bargain could include a guilty plea to perjury, lying under oath on the witness stand in the civil fraud trial, where he was called to testify by the state as part of his plea deal on Trump Organization-related tax evasion charges, for which Weisselberg, 76, spent three months on Rikers Island. 

Ms. James and Mr. Bragg are both suing Mr. Trump, in civil and in criminal court, respectively. Mr. Bragg alleges that the former president falsified business records to conceal hush-money-payments to the porn star Stormy Daniels in an attempt to keep “damaging information” from American voters “before and after” the 2016 election, as stated on the district attorney’s website. The case is expected to go to trial at the end of March. 

For years, Mr. Bragg has been trying to get Weisselberg to testify against Mr. Trump, who was his employer for half a century. In a previous case, the district attorney charged Weisselberg with tax evasion after he refused to flip on Mr. Trump. Weisselberg pleaded guilty. In January 2023, he was sentenced to five months in prison, and ordered to pay over $2 million dollars in back tax penalties. He is currently still serving his five year probation. The alleged perjury charge could put the 76-year-old behind bars again. Despite being aggressively prosecuted and imprisoned at an advanced age, Weisselberg has consistently refused to testify against the Trumps.

In an email sent on Monday, Judge Engoron asked the attorneys if there was any additional information he should consider as he weighs his final decision. “I of course want to know whether Weisselberg is now changing his tune, and whether he is admitting he lied under oath in my courtroom at this trial.” The judge wrote. He added that he may “invoke falsus in uno,” false in one thing, false in everything, and disregard Weisselberg’s entire testimony. 

The attorneys all agreed that the perjury and plea-bargain speculations are completely irrelevant to the case. 

“At this time, we are not involved in any negotiations and are unaware of what specific trial testimony may be the subject of the plea negotiations or whether Mr. Weisselberg has conceded that he testified falsely.” Mr. Wallace wrote, answering on behalf of the attorney general. 

He further called the “outcome” of the perjury inquiry “unnecessary,” reminding the judge that the testimony of another witness, real estate agent Kevin Sneddon, a former employee at the Trump Organization, showed that Weisselberg’s testimony “cannot be relied upon.” 

The issue at hand, the alleged lie, concerns the square footage of Mr.Trump’s lavish penthouse at Trump Tower. Under oath, Weisselberg said he was unaware of the size of the penthouse, when reporters from Forbes magazine, in 2016, pointed out it was three times smaller than the Trump Organization claimed, resulting in a $200 million overstatement of its value.      

Forbes immediately published an article, while Weisselberg was still on the witness stand, citing communications with the former financial officer that discussed the discrepancy. In other words, the perjury allegation is not new. 

The witness to whom Mr. Wallace, referred in his letter, Mr. Sneddon said under oath that Weisselberg informed him the apartment was “quite large, I think it’s around 30,000 square feet.”

“Negotiations over a potential plea agreement could go on indefinitely,” Mr. Wallace warned the judge. Instead he urged the judge to come to a ruling, and “impose necessary measures to prevent further fraud, including industry bans and the appointment of a monitor with robust oversight, as soon as possible.” 

Though the defense fiercely denies the fraud, and has said it will appeal Judge Engoron’s final decision, which is expected to be adverse to the Trumps, attorney Cliffort Robert agreed that “after more than three years of investigation, millions of pages of documents produced in discovery, countless depositions, and a three-month trial, the record in this case is closed.” 

Mr. Robert further pointed out that “the Court lacks the legal authority under New York law to take judicial notice of news stories.” He also reminded the judge of yet another witness who testified during the trial, Mr. Trump’s nemesis and former lawyer, Michael Cohen. If the judge deemed to disregard Weisselberg’s testimony as falsus in uno, he should also disregard the testimony of Mr. Cohen, “who in fact, perjured himself in the immediate view and presence of this Court!” 

“The Article simply does not provide any principled basis for the Court to reopen the record or question the veracity of Mr. Weisselberg’s testimony in this case,” Mr. Robert concluded. “Indeed, we respectfully submit that the Court’s request for comment on this speculative media account is unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling.”

Ms. James included the severance Weisselberg was paid by the Trump Organization after he was released from jail in her final calculations for the damages. She seeks over $370 million.    

“Weisselberg should disgorge his severance payments of $2,000,000,” Mr. Wallace wrote in his proposed findings of fact in early January. 

The judge’s final decision is now rumored to come sometime in mid February.