“They’re showing contempt for the jury”: Experts warn Trump courtroom antics could badly backfire

Donald Trump’s courtroom antics, especially those poking at the presiding federal judge, during his second E. Jean Carroll defamation trial could backfire on the former president, legal experts say.

U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan directed the former president to muzzle his commentary or face being removed the from courtroom, a move that Trump responded to by throwing up his hands and exclaiming he would “love” that. That behavior, according to MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, appears to serve a specific goal. 

“He is absolutely doing it intentionally,” Rubin said during an appearance on “Morning Joe” Thursday. “One of the things that wasn’t picked up in some of the reporting was when Kaplan said to him before the recess, ‘You just can’t help yourself under the circumstances, can you?’ Trump walked out – and there was a lot of cross-talk, it was difficult to hear – but apparently, according to the Associated Press and others, he shot back, ‘Nor can you’ or ‘You can’t either.'”

Rubin argued that Trump and his lawyer Alina Habba believe themselves to be “in a battle of wills” with the judge, citing the latter’s complaint to Kaplan that she doesn’t “like to be spoken to that way” after being reprimanded for pressing the judge on a request he had already denied. 

But the “most threatening” thing to the former president is the uncertainty around how much Kaplan is willing to punish him for his courtroom behavior, Rubin added. 

“Kaplan hasn’t made a specific threat. He said, ‘I can eject you from the courtroom.’ But Trump doesn’t know whether Kaplan will fine him or hold him in contempt, bar him from testifying,” she explained. “There are any number of measures Kaplan can take, and the fact that he hasn’t been clear about which one he will choose is what is keeping Trump as much in line as he has been, even though his conduct is unbecoming of any person in the courtroom.”

Altogether, Trump and his legal team’s behavior Wednesday definitely didn’t help his case in the eyes of the jury or the judge, Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg explained on MSNBC’s “Way Too Early,” comparing Trump’s potential for success in the trial to the Titanic sinking.

“Yesterday was a disaster for Trump as a defendant,” Aronberg said Thursday morning in a clip flagged by Raw Story. “I would liken him to the Titanic but at least the Titanic had a band. Even though he’s playing to his rabid MAGA base — that’s the intent here — he’s losing in the actual court because they’re antagonizing the judge. They’re showing contempt for the jury, and of course to E. Jean Carroll.”

Aronberg went on to predict that Trump will encounter more damages in the ongoing defamation trial than the $5 million he was ordered to pay after jurors found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation in the previous trial last year. He noted the “collateral estoppel” doctrine in the case that disallows Trump and Habba from attempting to “relitigate the first trial.”

“But instead of trying to reduce the damages here by showing, look, it was her own words — E. Jean Carroll’s own words — that prompted the abuse and not Trump’s words, they’re just stoking the fire,” Aronberg added. “And Trump didn’t even stand up when the jury was leaving today. He walked out of the courtroom. That’s the kind of stuff that will get you bit at the end of the day. I expect a very large verdict here in punitive damages.”

Other legal experts echoed Aronberg and Rubin’s assertions that Trump’s courtroom conduct is meant to rouse his supporters and divert attention from the facts of the law.

“Trump *wants* to create a circus during the trial to make the judge’s reaction to his conduct the story,” wrote former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti on X, formerly Twitter. “He wants the story to be the circus, not the facts or the law.”

“This trial will only last a few days. The goal is to get through it,” former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance added. “But if Trump keeps pushing he leaves the judge was [sic] no choice. Even in criminal cases a disruptive defendant can be excluded from the courtroom & given an opportunity to view but not disrupt the jury.”