The judge issued a gag order against the candidate the day after New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan held a hearing regarding former president Donald Trump’s request to postpone or deny the “hush income” case against him.
The prosecutor wrote,” It is without a doubt that the imminentness of the risk of injury is now paramount.”
Judge Merchan had stated in a hearing last month that he would not be issuing joke orders at the time, but the gag orders come after two different courts have upheld joke purchases on President Trump that have received appeals panels.
In particular, President Trump will be prohibited from making public statements or ordering others to do so “if they are made with the intention of substantially affecting… counsel’s or owner’s work in this judicial case, or in the knowledge that such interference is likely to occur.” This includes members of the court, district attorney staff, family members of counsel, and personnel.
The ban on remarks about “prospective jury” appears to be wider than past purchases, despite the fact that the order is modeled after another joke attempt on President Trump.
Related Reports
The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, using different lawyers ‘ calls for gag directions on the previous president, requested the joke attempt in February to last the trial’s period.
The pleasure sought raises issues between the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and the State’s commitment to the good administration of justice. Judge Merchan wrote that the best balance between these hobbies may be made.
Prosecutors had presented a significant number of social media posts that President Trump made in relation to the case, including ones that attacked witnesses ‘ credibility and character.
The judge cited President Trump’s insistence that it was noteworthy that he did not deny making these comments or the “reported effects” on the parties he targeted.
As the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential poll, defense attorneys argued that President Trump has a First Amendment right to discuss his legal issues and support himself in open forums, and that Americans also have a First Amendment right to hear his side of the story.
The prosecutor disagreed, finding the nature of the remarks beyond security.
” These judicial claims went way beyond defending himself against’ attacks’ by’ people figures,'” the prosecutor wrote. ” Indeed, his statements were threatening, inflammatory, denigrating, and the targets of his statements ranged from local and federal officials, court and court staff, prosecutors and staff assigned to the cases, and private individuals including grand jurors performing their civic duty”.
When the judge ruled against issuing a gag order in April, he warned the parties against making incendiary remarks about the case. Defense attorneys claimed that President Trump has n’t targeted those involved in the case because the warning was sufficient deterrent.
According to the judge, who cited President Trump’s statements in a separate federal court case as evidence, he was “unpersuaded” that this was the case in his most recent order.
April 15 Trial
Although the defense had a trial scheduled for March 25, the trial was originally scheduled for March 25. More than 100, 000 pages of discovery were made in early March.
He claimed that the defense had made serious allegations that were unsupported by case law during the hearing. He determined that federal attorneys who had provided the discovery so late had fulfilled their discovery obligations and were not at fault for it.
He ended the hearing by directing an April 15 trial, a day earlier than the anticipated April 25 trial, to prevent Passover overlap.
President Trump stated in a press conference following the hearing that he did n’t believe the case could go to trial next month after being accused of 34 counts of falsifying business records by the Manhattan District Attorney.
” I do n’t know that you’re going to have the trial”, he told reporters. ” I do n’t know how you can have a trial like this in the middle of an election, a presidential election… I do n’t know that you’re going to have a trial, I think we’re going to get some court rulings”.
