Judge Arthur Engoron blocked the defense team's plan to call the Trump Organization's independent monitor, describing the last-minute change to the defense's witness list as "untimely" and "inappropriate."

The judge's ruling came after defense lawyer Clifford Robert announced the plan to call former federal Judge Barbara Jones and her associate to testify for the defense.

Before Engoron issuing his ruling from the bench, attorneys from both sides appeared to privately meet with the judge in his chambers.

"I hereby preclude their testimony," Engoron said from the bench, regarding Jones and her associate.

Engoron said that he determined that Jones and her staff are effectively "arms of the court" and thus cannot be called to testify.

He also expressed concern that Jones' testimony could create conflicts of interest that force her to step away from her role overseeing the Trump Organization's finances.

Donald Trump's lawyers plan to call former federal Judge Barbara Jones -- who has served as the Trump Organization's independent monitor since 2022 -- as a witness for the defense case, according to defense attorney Clifford Robert.

Jones was installed as the firm's independent monitor last November at the request of New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Though Jones was not originally included in the defense's witness list, Robert flagged the change to the court near the end of the direct examination of Trump Hotels chief operating officer Mark Hawthorn.

Hawthorn testified that he has regularly met with Jones since her appointment, and that the two have a transparent and cooperative relationship.

"We believe everything they deemed as an objection we have responded to diligently and very accurately," Hawthorn said. "No one from that team has ever communicated to us that they have uncovered fraud or any irregularities."

Jones, however, wrote in an August 2023 report that the Trump Organization provided "incomplete" information and did not consistently provide necessary certifications to lenders, prompting Judge Engoron to chastise the defendants in his summary judgment order.

"Even with a preliminary injunction in place, and with an independent monitor overseeing their compliance, defendants have continued to disseminate false and misleading information while conducting business," Engoron wrote.

Robert did not provide a timeline for when Jones might testify, and state attorney Andrew Amer reserved a right to object to the defense team calling Jones as a witness.

In their filing this morning arguing against the trial's limited gag order, Trump attorneys Clifford Robert, Chris Kise, and Alina Habba downplayed Trump's connection to the threats against Judge Engoron and his clerk, and argued that they do not justify the gag order's limit on Trump's constitutional right to free speech.

The arguments appeared to be foreshadowed by remarks made to reporters earlier this month by Habba, who has been a forceful voice for the former president both in and out of court.

"The president has never threatened her safety," Habba said of Engoron's clerk. "This is a high profile case, and unfortunately, this is what comes with it. There is not a day that I don't get a threat. It's just part of the game."

"If she had a real threat, she should get off the bench and stop having her photograph taken, but she hasn't done that," Habba added.

Donald Trump's lawyers, in a court filing this morning, doubled down on their criticism of the trial's limited gag order while distancing Trump and his co-defendants from what they called the "vile and reprehensible" threats against Judge Arthur Engoron and his principal law clerk.

In a filing arguing against the limited gag order, defense lawyer Clifford Robert said that the attacks -- which he said Trump neither condoned nor directed -- do not justify the gag order's unconstitutional restraint on Trump's free speech.

"Respondents' sole cognizable justification for the Gag Orders is that an unknown third party may react in a hostile or offensive manner to Petitioners' speech," Robert wrote.

While Robert characterized the threats as "disturbing, derogatory, and indefensible," he argued that it could not be proven that Trump's Truth Social post on Oct. 3 -- which prompted the limited gag order prohibiting statements about the judge's staff -- led to an increase in threats. Trump and his lawyers have never called for violence, condoned the attacks, or encouraged threatening behavior, Robert said.

The threatening behavior "merits appropriate security measures," Robert wrote. "However, it does not justify the wholesale abrogation of Petitioners' First Amendment rights in a proceeding of immense stakes to Petitioners," which Robert argued has been "compromised by the introduction of partisan bias on the bench."