New York Attorney General Letitia James has requested a Dec. 8 deadline to respond to what she called the "spurious allegations" in Donald Trump's motion for a mistrial, a day after Trump sought a mistrial claiming bias on the part of Judge Arthur Engoron and his clerk.

If granted, the request would delay any decision on the mistrial motion until later in the trial and likely push any potential appeal until after the trial has concluded.

State attorney Kevin Wallace cited the "considerable daily attention" of the trial and the impending Thanksgiving holiday as reasons for the extended deadline.

"The Office of the Attorney General's position is that -- putting aside the total lack of merit to Defendants' application for a mistrial -- it is preferable to have the Court hear and decide the application on full briefing," Wallace wrote.

State attorney Kevin Wallace, cross-examining defense expert Jason Flemmons, attempted to challenge Flemmons' testimony by pressing the accountant on his experience with personal financial statements and his work reviewing Trump's statements.

Flemmons testified that he himself had compiled fewer than five statements of financial condition, none of which were done after 2000. He also acknowledged that he did not review each of Trump's financial statements between 2011 and 2021, which are the subject of the New York attorney general's complaint.

Flemmons generally underplayed the importance of the financial statements by suggesting that most issues Wallace raised were "easily curable with a phone call."

Asked if he could provide a specific example where he was involved in such a follow-up inquiry, Flemmons failed to offer an example and instead generally referred to his time working for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Court was subsequently adjourned for the day, with Wallace scheduled to continue his testimony tomorrow morning.

The defense's accounting expert could not identify any departures from generally accepted accounting principles -- known as GAAP -- in Donald Trump's statements of financial condition that were not disclosed, according to his testimony.

"I don't believe I have identified any additional discrepancies with GAAP that were not covered by those disclosures," Jason Flemmons testified toward the end of his direct examination.

Flemmons also testified that the statements appropriately cited their use of appraisals, challenging the state's assertion that Trump ignored vital appraisal information.

"Was the use of appraisals accurately described in the statements?" defense attorney Jesus Suarez asked.

"I believe so. I don't believe there was anything that contradicted the use of appraisals but also other bases for evaluating the properties," Flemmons responded.

Suarez concluded his lengthy direct examination, setting up state attorney Kevin Wallace's cross-examination of Flemmons.

After Jason Flemmons, the defense’s expert accounting witness, had testified at length about how Donald Trump's financial statements included adequate disclaimers to explain his departure from normal accounting standards, Judge Engoron interjected to push back on the testimony.

That prompted Flemmons to confirm he is attesting largely to the general accounting methods used by the Trump Organization -- not the specific numbers they provided for each of their assets.

As Flemmons gets further into his second day on the stand, Judge Engoron's initial enthusiasm regarding his testimony appears to be on the wane, with the judge sustaining more of the state’s objections and asking increasingly skeptical questions.

Defense attorney Chris Kise requested that Judge Engoron again reconsider his decision to fine Donald Trump $10,000 for violating the case's limited gag order yesterday, offering a broader criticism of the gag order based on First Amendment grounds.

"This is open, public, and the defendant has a First Amendment right to comment on what he sees and perceives as a potential source of bias," Kise said.

Like yesterday, Kise maintained that Trump was referring to Michael Cohen, rather than the judge's law clerk, during his hallway statement in which he said the judge has a "person who is very partisan sitting alongside of him." Trump attested to this on the stand yesterday, though Engoron found that Trump was "not credible."

"The review of the statement does not support the sanction," Kise said.

Even if Trump was referring to the clerk, Kise made a broader argument that the gag order itself was "constitutionally infirm," considering Trump is the "leading candidate" for the presidency.

"I don't think that the order survives constitutional scrutiny," Kise said.

State attorney Andrew Amer argued in support of the gag order, which he said was narrowly limited to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

"A federal judge in D.C. has issued a similar order to protect herself," Amer added, referring to a ruling in Trump's election interference case.

Judge Engoron said he would reconsider the fine but stood by his gag order.