The Manhattan federal judge overseeing next week’s trial in writer EJ Carroll’s defamation lawsuit against disgraced former President Trump on Thursday rejected Team Orange lawyer Joe Tacopina’s request that the court inform the jury that Trump really wanted to be there for every day of the proceedings but didn’t want to burden New Yorkers with his presence and security requirements.

“Mr Trump’s lead counsel expresses Mr Trump’s alleged desire to testify at trial but seeks an order from the Court excusing his presence unless either party calls him as a witness and, in the event he does not testify, instructing the jury that his ‘absence… by design, avoids the logistical burdens that his presence, as the former president, would cause the courthouse and New York City.’ First, the Court neither excuses nor declines to excuse Mr Trump from attending the trial or from testifying in this case… the Court notes but does not accept Mr Trump’s counsel’s claims concerning alleged burdens on the courthouse or the City were Mr Trump to attend or testify. Mr Trump is entitled by law to the protection of the United States Secret Service, which he now has enjoyed as a former president for more than two years… Moreover, the Court notes from Mr Trump’s campaign web site and media reports that he announced earlier this week that he will speak at a campaign event in New Hampshire on April 27, 2023, the third day of the scheduled trial in this case. If the Secret Service can protect him at that event, certainly the Secret Service, the Marshals Service, and the City of New York can see to his security in this very secure federal courthouse.”

“The question of the requested jury instruction is premature. Mr Trump is free to attend, to testify, or both. He is free also to do none of those things. Should he elect not to appear or testify, his counsel may renew the request. In the meantime, there shall be no reference by counsel for Mr Trump in the presence of the jury panel or the trial jury to Mr Trump’s alleged desire to testify or to the burdens that any absence on his part allegedly might spare, or might have spared, the Court or the City of New York,” wrote Judge Lewis Kaplan in his ruling siding with Carroll’s team.