Media frequently refers to the Manhattan trial of former President Donald Trump as the “hush money” case, even though the charges and conviction (whatever one thinks of their validity) were for falsification of business records regarding payments to his former attorney, Michael Cohen. Perhaps they would do better to refer to it as the “Hush your mouth” case, as the gag order imposed on Trump by trial judge Juan Merchan has been upheld by a New York appellate court, despite the fact that we are two months post-verdict and in the middle of a presidential election.
NEW YORK (AP) — A New York appeals court on Thursday denied Donald Trump’s bid to end a gag order in his hush money criminal case, rejecting the Republican former president’s argument that his May conviction “constitutes a change in circumstances” that warrants lifting the restrictions.
A five-judge panel in the state’s mid-level appellate court ruled that the trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, was correct in extending parts of the gag order until Trump is sentenced, writing that “the fair administration of justice necessarily includes sentencing.”
The ruling came a day after Trump’s lawyers tried to file papers asking the appellate court to immediately lift the gag order. With its ruling imminent, the court rejected the filing, which called the restrictions an “unconstitutional, election-interfering” muzzle on Trump’s free speech.
In a copy of the prospective filing provided to the Associated Press, Trump’s lawyers wrote that Vice President Kamala Harris’ entry into the presidential race gives the matter new urgency as she pits herself as an ex-prosecutor taking on a “convicted felon.”
BREAKING: Judge Merchan Partially Lifts Gag Order on Donald Trump
New York’s Highest Court Declines to Take Up Trump Gag Order Appeal…for Now
The brief three-page decision, which may be viewed in its entirety below, notes that courts have the power to ensure the “fair administration of justice,” which necessarily includes sentencing. Currently, Trump’s sentencing is set for September 18, after having been pushed back from its original July 11 setting.
Noting its prior ruling on the matter, as well as Merchan’s post-trial revision of the gag order’s scope, the court stated:
In petitioner’s prior article 78 proceeding challenging the Restraining Order, this Court held that “Justice Merchan properly weighed petitioner’s First Amendment Rights against the court’s historical commitment to ensuring the fair administration of justice in criminal cases, and the right of persons related or tangentially related to the criminal proceedings from being free from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm” (Matter of Trump v Merchan, 227 AD3d at 520-521). Following the verdict, Justice Merchan granted so much of petitioner’s motion to the extent of terminating the provisions of the Restraining Order governing his statements about trial witnesses and the jury. However, Justice Merchan retained paragraph (b) of the Restraining Order, finding that the court and District Attorney staff covered thereby “must continue to perform their lawful duties free from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm” until sentencing.
Presumably, Trump’s legal team will appeal this decision to the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court), but for now, the revised gag order (permitting him to discuss witnesses and jurors but restricting his statements regarding individual prosecutors — other than District Attorney Alvin Bragg — court staff, or family members) will remain in effect.
2024 04013 in the Matter of the a v in the Matter of the a DECISION and ORDER 9 by Susie Moore on Scribd
