The media often refers to former President Donald Trump’s trial in Manhattan as the “hush money” case, even though the charges and conviction (however solid one thinks they are) were for falsifying business records related to payments to his former lawyer, Michael Cohen. Perhaps it would be more correct to call it the “hush money” case, since the gag order imposed on Trump by trial judge Juan Merchan has been going on for years. confirmed by a New York appeals court, even though we are two months after the verdict and in the middle of a presidential election.
NEW YORK (AP) — A New York appeals court on Thursday denied Donald Trump’s request to lift a news blackout in his hush-money criminal case, rejecting the former Republican president’s argument that his conviction in May represented “a change of circumstances” that justified lifting the restrictions.
A five-judge panel of the state’s appeals court ruled that trial judge Juan M. Merchan acted correctly in extending parts of the news blackout until Trump is convicted, writing that “the fair administration of justice necessarily includes the promulgation of a verdict.”
The ruling came a day after Trump’s lawyers tried to file papers with the appeals court demanding that the news blackout be lifted immediately. Shortly before the verdict was announced, the court rejected the request, calling the restrictions an “unconstitutional, election-influencing” restriction on Trump’s free speech.
In a copy of the prospective motion obtained by The Associated Press, Trump’s lawyers wrote that Vice President Kamala Harris’ entry into the presidential race adds up-to-date urgency to the matter because she portrays herself as a former prosecutor taking on a “convicted felon.”
BREAKING NEWS: Judge Merchan partially lifts news blackout against Donald Trump
New York’s Supreme Court rejects appeal against Trump’s news blackout … for now
The brief, three-page decision, which can be viewed in full below, says courts have the authority to ensure the “fair administration of justice,” which necessarily includes sentencing. Trump’s sentencing is currently scheduled for September 18, after being postponed from the original July 11 date.
Citing its previous ruling in this case and Merchan’s subsequent modification of the scope of the news blackout, the court stated:
In plaintiff’s earlier Article 78 proceeding challenging the preliminary injunction, this Court held that “Judge Merchan properly balanced plaintiff’s First Amendment rights against the Court’s historic obligation to ensure the fair administration of justice in criminal cases and the right of persons connected with or indirectly connected with the criminal proceedings to be free from threats, intimidation, harassment, and harm” (Matter of Trump v Merchan, 227 AD3d, 520-521). After entering judgment, Judge Merchan granted plaintiff’s motion to the extent that the provisions of the preliminary injunction governing his testimony about trial witnesses and the jury were vacated. However, Judge Merchan upheld paragraph (b) of the preliminary injunction, holding that until judgment is rendered, the court and the District Attorney’s Office employees covered by it “must continue to perform their legal duties free from threats, intimidation, harassment and harm.”
Trump’s lawyers will likely appeal the decision to the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court), but for now the revised news gag order remains in place (which allows him to speak about witnesses and jurors, but restricts his statements about individual prosecutors—except District Attorney Alvin Bragg—court staff, or family members).
2024 04013 in the matter of av in the matter of a DECISION and ORDER 9 from Susan Moore on Scribd
