alvin bragg Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Judge rejects Trump bid to delay hush-money sentencing

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:36:48 +0000

Left: Donald Trump speaks after voting in the Florida primary election in Palm Beach, Fla., Tuesday, March 19, 2024 (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee). Right: New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan poses for a picture in his chambers in New York, Thursday, March 14, 2024 (AP Photo/Seth Wenig).

The judge presiding over Donald Trump‘s criminal hush-money case has denied a motion from the president-elect to postpone Friday’s sentencing hearing.

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan issued the order late on Monday, calling Trump’s motion “for the most part, a repetition of the arguments he has raised numerous times in the past.”

Early Monday, Trump had asked Merchan to halt the Jan. 10 sentencing while he appeals the court’s decision to uphold his conviction on 34 felony charges for falsifying business records.

Trump also used the opportunity to malign Merchan and prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office for bringing the charges against him in the first place while arguing that the appeal should trigger an immediate halt of the case at the trial level.

“As discussed herein, the commencement of appellate proceedings — which should result in a dismissal of this politically-motivated prosecution that was flawed from the very beginning, centered around the wrongful actions and false claims of a disgraced, disbarred serial-liar former attorney, violated President Trump’s due process rights, and had no merit — seeking interlocutory review of these claims of Presidential immunity immediately results in an automatic stay of proceedings in this Court,” the document states. “Due to the fact that further criminal proceedings are automatically stayed by operation of federal constitutional law, the Court will lack authority to proceed with sentencing, must therefore immediately vacate the sentencing hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025, and suspend all proceedings in the case until the conclusion of President Trump’s appeal on Presidential immunity.”

Trump requested that Merchan rule on his request to stay the proceedings within a few hours, asking the court to notify the parties of his decision by 2 p.m. on Monday.

Hours after filing the stay, Trump’s attorneys filed a notice of appeal, arguing that Merchan’s ruling that immunity does not extend to the president-elect was erroneous and should be reversed.

“Justice Merchan’s erroneous decisions threaten the institution of the Presidency and run squarely against established precedent disallowing any criminal process against a President-Elect, as well as prohibiting the use of evidence of a President’s official acts against him in a criminal proceeding,” the appeal stated.

The Manhattan DA’s Office, for their part, opposed Trump’s motion to delay sentencing, arguing in a motion Monday afternoon that “Contrary to defendant’s claim, the mere fact that he has invoked presidential immunity in an interlocutory appeal does not entitle him to an automatic stay of further trial proceedings pending appeal.”

Prosecutors also informed Merchan of their belief that Trump was unlikely to win his appeal.

Merchan in his denial appeared to be unmoved by Trump’s arguments.

“This Court finds that the authorities relied upon in the motion by the Defendant are for the most part, factually distinguishable from the actual record or legally inapplicable,” Merchan wrote.

Merchan on Friday issued an 18-page order refusing to vacate the case against Trump but signaled that the former and soon-to-be president is not likely not face any real legal consequences and granted Trump’s request to appear virtually for the hearing.

“While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation,” the order reads.

The judge went on to muse that the “most viable solution to ensure finality” and allow Trump to exhaust his appellate rights is by sentencing him to “unconditional discharge.” This form of sentence equates to no further consequences and is typically used when a judge determines there is no practical import to imposing any legal disability on a convicted criminal defendant.

Law&Crime’s Jerry Lambe contributed to this report.

Source link

The post Judge rejects Trump bid to delay hush-money sentencing appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump blasts Bragg for death analogy used in hush-money case

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 14 Dec 2024 09:20:23 +0000

Left to right: Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks on Tuesday April 2, 2024, at a rally in Green Bay, Wis. (AP Photo/Mike Roemer), Judge Juan Merchan poses for a picture in his chambers in New York, Thursday, March 14, 2024 (AP Photo/Seth Wenig), FILE — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg gestures while speaking during a news conference Feb. 22, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II).

Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump on Friday again asked the judge overseeing his New York City-based hush-money case to dismiss the indictment and vacate the jury’s guilty verdicts.

Earlier this week, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed the state’s response to Trump’s motion to dismiss.

In the 82-page filing, the Democratic Party prosecutor suggested New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan could use the “abatement-by-death” process to give the case some finality.

In the 23-page reply, a section header refers to the district attorney’s suggestion as a “Dark Dream Scenario” that is “Not An Option.”

Trump’s attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove rubbished the idea as an effort to “fabricate” an “unconstitutional” adventure into a “Wonderland” and “make new law contrary to binding precedent.”

In the state’s brief, Bragg admits that New York does not use the form of abatement that his office is proposing – and directs the court’s attention to the “Alabama rule.” The district attorney describes the rule as: “when a defendant dies after he is found guilty, but before the conviction becomes final through the appellate process, the court places in the record of the case a notation to the effect that the conviction removed the presumption of innocence but was neither affirmed nor reversed on appeal because the defendant died.”

The state’s brief then explains how Merchan might apply the Alabama rule to the present case involving the 45th and 47th president:

In this way, the Alabama rule abates the criminal proceedings without vacating the underlying conviction or dismissing the indictment. As applied here, this Court could similarly terminate the criminal proceeding by placing a notation in the record that the jury verdict removed the presumption of innocence; that defendant was never sentenced; and that his conviction was neither affirmed nor reversed on appeal because of presidential immunity.

It makes sense to borrow from the manner in which courts address abatement because many of defendant’s arguments here parallel the arguments made in favor of dismissal and vacatur upon a defendant’s death.

Those notions, Trump’s reply argues, amount to something not entirely unlike appalling – and, in any event, are precluded by law.

“As a further illustration of DA Bragg’s desperation to avoid legally mandated dismissal, [Bragg’s office] proposes that the Court pretend as if one of the assassination attempts against President Trump had been successful,” the latest motion reads. “[Bragg’s office] also thinks it ‘makes sense’ for Your Honor to pretend that the Court is in Alabama. These abatement arguments are absurd.”

While headline-generating, the abatement-by-death suggestion is one of many arrows in the district attorney’s quiver.

Late last month, Bragg’s office made it clear prosecutors intend to push forward and ask for Trump to be sentenced in connection with his 34 felony convictions on charges of falsifying business documents — after he finishes his second term as president in January 2029.

That is still Bragg’s preferred method here – effectively keeping the case in a state of formal legal limbo for the next four years. But, this week, Bragg theorized that Trump could still be formally sentenced immediately – while keeping any resulting consequences at bay.

“If defendant is sentenced before his inauguration, such a stay would merely place appellate proceedings in abeyance,” the DA’s motion reads. “If defendant takes future steps to stay his sentencing and succeeds in doing so, such a stay would delay his sentencing until after the end of his presidential term.”

Trump wholly rejected that idea, too.

“The Zombie Case, which started in 2018 and involves decades-old false allegations, cannot ‘simply’ be ‘stayed’ until President Trump leaves Office in 2029,” the defense reply goes on. “[Bragg’s office] proposed course of action would violate not only Presidential immunity, but also due process, the Sixth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment.”

To hear the once-and-future president tell it, a recent memo by the Office of Legal Counsel relied upon by special counsel Jack Smith foreclosed against keeping a sitting president under the threat of criminal sanction – period. While the case law cited Smith – and subsequently relied upon by the defense – is necessarily federal in nature, Trump says the parallels are obvious and apply here.

The defense reply explains, at length:

President Trump would be “legally stigmatized,” in violation of the Constitution, by the proposed stay because he would be denied “any meaningful opportunity to respond to his accusers in a court of law.” The “mere pendency of an indictment” violates Presidential immunity. OLC’s conclusions are grounded in reality and compelling. [Bragg’s office] offers no persuasive reason to avoid them. Staying the proceedings during President Trump’s second term would impede the Presidency and give New York County intolerable leverage over the Executive Branch, which exists for the protection of the entire Nation…

In addition, a stay would require President Trump to lead the Country while facing the ongoing threat that this Court and [Bragg’s office] are prepared to impose imprisonment, fines, and other punishment as soon as he leaves Office. To be clear, President Trump will never deviate from the public interest in response to these thuggish tactics. However, the threat itself is unconstitutional, under the Presidential Transition Act, the Presidential immunity doctrine, and the Supremacy Clause, because it would exacerbate the stigma and distraction burdens discussed above…

Trump’s team reiterates its arguments from their earlier brief. Namely, that dismissal is required by the presidential immunity doctrine, the Presidential Transition Act, and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The heart of the defense brief, however, is steeped in attacks on Bragg’s character – and heavy focus is on the abatement idea.

Again, the defense filing:

[Bragg’s] brief includes a request that the Court disregard the New York Court of Appeals and fabricate unconstitutional “abatement” law, all based on an extremely troubling and irresponsible analogy between President Trump—who has survived multiple assassination attempts, and will soon be “the only person who alone composes a branch of government”—and a hypothetical dead defendant. That unhinged contention demonstrates conclusively that DA Bragg and [the DA’s office] cannot be trusted to separate their political motivations and careerist ambitions from their obligations to seek justice.

Source link

The post Trump blasts Bragg for death analogy used in hush-money case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump cites Biden pardon in bid to end hush-money case

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 04 Dec 2024 02:54:25 +0000

Left to right: Donald Trump speaks Tuesday April 2, 2024, at a rally in Green Bay, Wis. (AP Photo/Mike Roemer), FILE — Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg gestures while speaking during a news conference Feb. 22, 2024, in New York (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II), FILE — Hunter Biden departs from federal court June 11, 2024, in Wilmington, Del. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum), Clarence Thomas (YouTube/Library of Congress).

Attorneys for President-elect Donald Trump on Monday asked the judge overseeing his New York City-based hush-money case to dismiss the indictment and vacate the jury’s guilty verdicts.

In an 80-page filing, attorneys Todd Blanche and Emil Bove say three distinct sources of federal law “require” the defense’s requested “result” and those legal sources “require it immediately.”

But the penultimate filing in the case actually begins with an invocation of current events: President Joe Biden’s pardon of his adult son Hunter Biden’s felony gun conviction and any would-be crimes.

“Yesterday, in issuing a 10-year pardon to Hunter Biden that covers any and all crimes whether charged or uncharged, President Biden asserted that his son was ‘selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,’ and ‘treated differently,”” the filing, docketed Tuesday, reads.

Trump’s attorneys do not only crib language from the 46th president’s perfidious bout of patrimonial clemency, they also echo the elder Biden’s words targeting the work of federal prosecutors.

“President Biden argued that ‘raw politics has infected this process and it led to a miscarriage of justice,’” the motion goes on. “These comments amounted to an extraordinary condemnation of President Biden’s own DOJ. This is the same DOJ that coordinated and oversaw the politically-motivated, election-interference witch hunts targeting President Trump.”

The filing accuses Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, of having engaged in “precisely the type of political theater” the president rubbished when he issued his son’s pardon.

The Damocletian nature of that option is mentioned in the motion.

“With respect to Presidential immunity, it would be egregious and unlawful for this Court to hold the prospect of a 2029 sentencing over President Trump’s head while he continues his service to this Country,” the filing reads. “President Trump would be required to operate ‘under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become. the subject of inquiry’ at a future sentencing.”

Trump’s attorneys go on to say the prospect of a president working under such conditions would “seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government.”

And, so the argument goes, simply putting the sentencing of the case on a shelf in a legal freezer would violate the presidential immunity doctrine created by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year.

In the filing, Trump’s attorneys tear into Bragg for having “ignored” the recent vintage immunity doctrine — saying the district attorney’s “hubris on that topic” and “stubborn insistence on offering official acts evidence in grand jury proceedings and at trial resulted in damage to the institution of the Presidency.”

The motion also criticizes the court itself for rushing ahead with the case “despite obviously relevant Supreme Court proceedings.”

The motion then lists a direct quote from Justice Clarence Thomas’s influential concurrence to the majority opinion: “Few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former President for his official acts.”

Presidential immunity, the motion argues, dovetails with arguments for dismissal sourced from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“Local elected officials such as DA Bragg have no valid basis to cause such disruptions, which also violate the Supremacy Clause,” the filing goes on. “Consequently, the federal Constitution is an absolute ‘legal impediment’ to further proceedings, and the case must be immediately dismissed.”

The motion elaborates on this point, at length:

As relevant here, “the Supremacy Clause prohibits state judges and prosecutors from interfering with a President’s official duties.” The Supreme Court has applied the Supremacy Clause in that fashion to federal employees since the 1800s.

…

The Supremacy Clause adds additional urgency to the need for immediate dismissal because DANY has created the nightmare scenario where a local, biased prosecutor is seeking to interfere with the outcome of the national election by encumbering the people’s choice of a leader with unacceptable burdens and distractions.

The third source of federal law cited by the defense is a statute: the Presidential Transition Act of 1963.

“The Presidential Transition Act applies to President Trump,” the motion goes on. “The Act’s legislative history makes clear that there is no material distinction between the President-elect and the post-inauguration sitting President for these purposes.”

Trump’s attorneys, citing precedent, say a presidential transition is effectively part of an incoming administration that implicates the “national interest” as well as the “public function” of the presidency.

This is essentially an argument that as president-elect, Trump is no longer a private citizen because his job already “includes evaluation of sensitive national security issues and associated grave risks.”

“[Bragg’s] insistence on continuing with these unlawful, failed proceedings intensifies the risk associated with that vulnerability,” the motion goes on. “President Trump has already commenced this complex. sensitive, and intensely time-consuming process. which is a ‘monumental undertaking.’ These proceedings are interfering with that process and must therefore be terminated immediately.”

The district attorney’s office has until Dec. 9, to file their response.

Source link

The post Trump cites Biden pardon in bid to end hush-money case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Trump readies second bite at recusal apple in New York cases

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 02 Apr 2024 06:01:58 +0000

Former U.S. President Donald Trump. (GDA via AP Images)

Former President Donald Trump plans to file a second motion to recuse the judge in charge of his New York City hush money case.

Several references to “recusal” are mentioned in a 13-page opposition brief filed by Trump’s attorneys late Monday. The brief itself largely aims to refute claims made by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that Trump has violated a limited gag order issued in the case by New York Supreme Court Justice Juan M. Merchan in late March.

“Along with this opposition brief, President Trump is simultaneously submitting a pre-motion letter seeking leave to file a recusal motion based on changed circumstances and newly discovered evidence,” a footnote appended to the first instance of “recusal” explains.

The 45th president’s attorneys must seek leave from Merchan to challenge the judge’s authority to oversee the case due to an earlier court ruling intended to tamp down on the number of docket entries. In that order, Merchan expressed disdain for defense efforts to increasingly delay the proceedings. In turn, he instructed both the defense and the state to file a one-page letter explaining why they needed to file any given motion before filing any additional motions.

When Trump’s defense motion for recusal is filed, the effort appears likely to be a reprise in both form and substance of a June 2023 attempt to have Merchan tossed from the case due to his daughter’s activities as a Democratic Party-affiliated political consultant.

In May 2023, an Empire State court ethics panel found Merchan’s “impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned” because of his daughter’s “business and/or political activities” and that he was “not ethically required to disclose them.” The judge issued his own ruling in August 2023, finding that “recusal would not be in the public interest” and that he was “certain in [his] ability to be fair and impartial.”

In court filings Friday and Monday, Bragg’s office argued Trump had violated the gag order by attacking Merchan’s daughter on social media. And, in the alternative, the state argued the gag order should be explicitly expanded to prohibit attacks on the judge’s family.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche rubbished those notions as entirely off-base and unsupported by both the text and subtext of the gag order.

“The March 26, 2024 opinion indicates that the Court was aware of prior public statements by President Trump relating to Your Honor’s daughter, as relevant to the recusal issue, but the Court did not extend the gag order as the People suggest,” the defense filing reads. “No violation has occurred, much less a violation of a clearly expressed and unequivocal mandate. Therefore, there is no basis for the disingenuous contempt warning proposed by the People.”

On Friday, Bragg suggested sanctions for Trump under an Empire State law that calls for a $1,000 fine and/or up to 30 days in jail. On Monday, Bragg referenced numerous Truth Social media posts.

Trump has trained his sights on Merchan’s daughter due, in part, to her documented support for the Democratic Party. While the district attorney’s office calls this alleged motivating factor a “false claim,” Merchan’s daughter is, in fact, a Democratic Party-aligned consultant who heads Authentic Campaigns. The company has previously worked for prominent Democrats, including President Joe Biden.

Bragg’s filing also references the confusion over an X (formerly Twitter) account that recently used an image of Trump behind bars as its profile picture — but which changed its profile picture after being identified and attacked by Trump. The defendant alleges that the account belongs to Merchan’s daughter; the New York court system claims that the account no longer belongs to her; the district attorney’s office claims the entire episode was “a fraudulent impersonation.”

In their motion previewing the recusal motion — which is technically intended to respond to the state’s gag order violation arguments — the defense sticks to their position that Merchan’s daughter, at the very least, deserves some scrutiny over the X account profile picture flap.

“President Trump’s social media posts amplified defense arguments regarding the need for recusal that have been, and will continue to be, the subject of motion practice,” the defense filing continues. “The posts also addressed specific political opponents who are clients of Authentic, where Your Honor’s daughter is a partner and executive, and responded to media reports regarding a social media account attributed to Your Honor’s daughter.”

Trump’s response argues the issues involving the judge, his daughter, and the soon-to-be-relaunched recusal efforts are all intertwined.

“President Trump’s comments concerning Your Honor’s daughter are, properly understood, a criticism of the Court’s prior decision not to recuse itself,” the defense argues. “The People’s attempted distinction between criticisms of Your Honor — which are fully protected by the First and Sixth Amendments, as explained by the D.C. Circuit, and not covered by the gag order — and references to family members of the Court is thus illusory, because one legitimate and constitutionally protected criticism of the Court relates to the Court’s failure to recuse notwithstanding one member of the Court’s immediate family having a financial interest in all ongoing attacks on President Trump, including this case, by virtue of her senior role at Authentic. Thus, extending the gag order to the Court’s family would necessarily extend the gag order to cover the Court itself.”

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Trump readies second bite at recusal apple in New York cases appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Manhattan DA wants Trump gagged even more in light of posts

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 01 Apr 2024 21:46:00 +0000

Alvin Bragg (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II), Donald Trump (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg on Monday asked a New York City judge to expand and enforce a previously issued gag order in former President Donald Trump’s upcoming hush money trial.

In an 8-page motion, the district attorney’s office once again implored New York Supreme Court Justice Juan M. Merchan to issue guidance on who, exactly, is covered by the order and to warn the defendant over a series of recent online social media posts.

“Defendant’s dangerous, violent, and reprehensible rhetoric fundamentally threatens the integrity of these proceedings and is intended to intimidate witnesses and trial participants alike — including this Court,” Bragg and his office wrote in the Monday court filing.

On March 26, Merchan issued the order. On March 27, Trump used a Truth Social media post to criticize the judge, his daughter, and Bragg. On March 28, the 45th president made similar rhetorical jabs.

On March 29, Bragg’s office filed a letter categorizing the defendant’s posts targeting the judge’s daughter as “contumacious” and asking Merchan to “clarify or confirm that the Order protects family members of the Court.” Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche quickly fired back, arguing the state was trying to “expand” the order and that “there was nothing ‘contumacious’ about the social media posts.

By late Monday, the back-and-forth dueling continued, with Bragg’s office enlarging their argument and citing additional Truth Social media posts to show the defendant’s history with such language — and to argue that he is also targeting potential witnesses.

“After a series of statements from defendant that included threatening ‘death and destruction’ if he was indicted and posting a photo of himself wielding a baseball bat at the back of the District Attorney’s head — statements which required an extensive public safety response by multiple law enforcement agencies — this Court admonished defendant to refrain from statements likely to incite violence or civil unrest or which jeopardized the rule of law,” the district attorney’s motion reads.

More Law&Crime coverage: The Trump Docket: A forgotten legal battle is about to rear its ugly head

The state originally took note of those initial posts during Trump’s April 2023 arraignment and moved for a gag order then. The issue was dispensed with, however, with a promise from the defense that their client “could and would self-regulate,” according to Bragg.

“Defendant proved himself totally incapable of self-regulating, going so far as to refer to one potential trial witness last week as ‘death,”” the district attorney’s motion goes on — with a link to yet another Truth Social media post referring to his former fixer and attorney Michael Cohen and former Manhattan prosecutor Mark Pomerantz.

The state’s effort to expand the gag order also cites no fewer than eight Truth Social media posts and argues that Trump is focusing his ire on Merchan’s daughter due, in part, to her support for the Democratic Party. While the district attorney’s office calls this a “false claim,” Merchan’s daughter is, in fact, a Democratic Party-aligned consultant.

Bragg’s filing also references the confusion over an X (formerly Twitter) account that recently used an image of Trump behind bars as its profile picture — but which changed its profile picture after being identified and attacked by Trump. The defendant alleges that account belongs to Merchan’s daughter; the New York court system claims that account no longer belongs to her; the district attorney’s office claims the entire episode was “a fraudulent impersonation.”

“Defendant’s conduct since this Court issued the March 26 Order is all the record that is necessary to justify a further order making clear that the Court’s family is off-limits,” the state’s motion goes on.

In response to a defense request for a “full adversarial briefing” on the gag order expansion and sanctions request, the district attorney’s office says no such efforts are necessary because it’s not a close call.

“This issue is not complicated,” the district attorney’s motion argues. “Family members of trial participants must be strictly off-limits. Defendant’s insistence to the contrary bespeaks a dangerous sense of entitlement to instigate fear and even physical harm to the loved ones of those he sees in the courtroom. This Court should immediately make clear that defendant is prohibited from making or directing others to make public statements about family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order.”

While the district attorney’s office repeatedly uses language to suggest the court can simply “clarify” the order already issued, the terms of the order do not purport to limit speech about the judge himself, his family, or Bragg. Conversely, the order explicitly does limit speech toward “members of the court’s staff” and Bragg’s staff as well as the “family members of any counsel or staff member.”

Likely anticipating objections to the language employed in the order, the district attorney’s motion also calls for an outright expansion.

“Defendant’s continued harassing and disruptive conduct thus demands clarification or expansion of this Court’s March 26 Order Restricting Extrajudicial Speech to protect the Court’s ability to administer this case; to protect this Court and the Court’s family from harm; and to show all witnesses, prospective jurors, and other trial participants that the judicial system stands ready to protect them too and to preserve the rule of law in the face of defendant’s extreme and deliberate provocations,” the state’s filing reads.

Trump’s defense attorneys, once again, quickly fired back their response to the state’s arguments for increased limits on their client’s speech.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Manhattan DA wants Trump gagged even more in light of posts appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Manhattan DA and Trump lawyer go on offense over gag order

homesafetytechpros — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 19:07:02 +0000

Left: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. (Lev Radin/Sipa USA/Sipa via AP Images); Right: Former President Donald Trump (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

Widely anticipated fallout from the limited gag order placed on former president Donald Trump in his New York City hush money case rained down quickly in a series of court filings on Friday.

On March 26, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan M. Merchan imposed a gag order on the 45th president that bars him from attacking witnesses, line prosecutors and staff, and jurors in the case.

The very next day, Trump used a Truth Social media post to criticize the judge, his daughter, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Another such post, using similar language, came the day after that.

“Judge Juan Merchan is totally compromised, and should be removed from this TRUMP Non-Case immediately,” the second post reads. “His Daughter, Loren, is a Rabid Trump Hater, who has admitted to having conversations with her father about me, and yet he gagged me.”

By Friday afternoon, Bragg’s office filed a pre-motion letter arguing that Trump had violated the terms of the court’s order.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Did the right thing’: Federal judge defends Trump’s hush-money trial gag order, warns of ‘greater number of threats’ since Jan. 6 and says America on road to ‘tyranny’

Earlier this month, Merchan decided he had seen enough pre-trial motions and issued an order requiring all parties to seek leave from the court, by way of a one-page letter, before filing additional motions.

Before issuing the gag order, the judge angrily reminded the defense of his those prior instructions to file a “one page pre motion letter” before attempting to file another motion in the case – warning Trump’s attorneys that failure to abide by the court’s rules could result in criminal contempt charges.

“The People believe that the March 26 Order is properly read to protect family members of the Court,” the state’s two-page letter reads. “But to avoid any doubt, this Court should now clarify or confirm that the Order protects family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order.”

Bragg’s office cites Trump’s two posts criticizing Merchan and his daughter in footnotes and refers to them in the body as “social media posts targeting a family member of this Court.”

The letter penned by Assistant District Attorney Joshua Steinglass clarifies why the judge issued the order in the first place by arguing that “potential trial witnesses and prospective jurors who are not currently the subject of defendant’s invective will likely fear having themselves and their family members be subject to similar attacks.”

Several such individuals, the district attorney’s office claims, have spoken to prosecutors and expressed fears for themselves and their families in the event they are called to testify against Trump.

“[T]his Court should make abundantly clear that the March 26 Order protects family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order,” the state’s letter continues. “Furthermore, the Court should warn defendant that his recent conduct is contumacious and direct him to immediately desist. If defendant continues to disregard such orders, he should face sanctions.”

The district attorney’s office recommends sanctions under Empire State law that call for a $1,000 fine and/or up to 30 days in jail.

Trump’s defense attorney Todd Blanche sharply rejected those claims in a two-page letter filed late Friday afternoon.

“The express terms of the gag order do not apply in the manner claimed by the People, which they seem to acknowledge by suggesting the need to ‘avoid any doubt,”” the defense letter reads. “That the gag order has been publicly interpreted in the way that President Trump reads it further supports the defense position on the order’s meaning. As a result, there was nothing ‘contumacious’ about the social media posts cited.”

The defense insists the court “cannot” direct Trump “to do something” beyond what the gag order requires.

“To ‘clarify or confirm’ the meaning of the gag order in the way the People suggest would be to expand it,” the defense letter continues. “No expansion is appropriate.”

Trump’s reply also requests “a complete opportunity for full adversarial briefing” to delve into “the constitutional problems attendant with any additional improper restrictions on protected campaign speech,” among other things.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Manhattan DA and Trump lawyer go on offense over gag order appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Hush money trial should be delayed due to media bias

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 27 Mar 2024 06:22:22 +0000

Former President Donald Trump arrives for a news conference on Monday, March 25, 2024, in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)

Attorneys representing former President Donald Trump recently filed a motion to adjourn his impending New York City hush money trial.

In the 31-page motion, the 45th president’s defense team claims their client “cannot get a fair trial in Manhattan County right now.”

“[N]o fair and impartial jury can be selected in this County at any time in the near future, including in April of this year,” the motion reads. “Therefore, the Court should adjourn the trial date until the prejudicial media coverage subsides.”

The twin hearts of the motion for further adjournment are a poll of New York State residents and an accompanying media study that purport to show publicity has infected the case to the point that the defendant’s “right to a fair trial” has been called into doubt.

According to the motion, 400 residents were polled in New York County and four surrounding counties that make up the suburban outskirts of the five boroughs — which also includes the relatively politically conservative borough of Staten Island.

“[P]otential jurors in Manhattan have been exposed to huge amounts of biased and unfair media coverage relating to this case,” the motion argues, referring to the survey. “Many of the potential jurors already wrongfully believe that President Trump is guilty.”

The motion goes on to cite some “1,223 online news articles between January 15, 2024 and February 24, 2024” which allegedly “provided details regarding the People’s allegations and purported evidence as well as opinions about this case” during the six-week period.

The filing also claims a “significant number” of the articles from the media study in question contain “prejudicial discussion of other proceedings involving President Trump and inaccurate and irrelevant discussions of alleged sexual misconduct” including rape.

According to Trump’s motion, the survey shows 88% of respondents had read or heard information about the “hush money” payments. And, the motion notes in a chart, there were 142 mentions of “hush money” in the articles identified by the media study.

The end result, Trump’s defense attorney’s claim, is that the prospective panel of jurors in the case has been “saturated” by anti-Trump media.

“The Survey and the Media Study provide quantitative force to that research and establish that potential jurors in New York County have been bombarded with online media coverage relating to this case and prejudicial references to other cases and irrelevant matters,” the motion argues. “Moreover, the Media Study does not even capture the incredible amount of prejudicial television coverage, which has been too voluminous to tally.”

The motion goes on to cite additional poll questions and responses that they argue show an “overwhelming bias against President Trump” by residents in New York County — which the motion also takes stock of by including presidential voting data. All this together, the court filing argues, compounds the pretrial publicity issues.

‘The People have sought to make their case a review of President Trump’s victory in the 2016 election,” the motion argues. “We have objected to those efforts in motions in limine, but respondents’ accounts of their voting history sheds light on the improper purpose behind the prosecution strategy.”

While mainly arguing that “significant adjournment is further supported by current prejudicial pretrial publicity,” the filing also references since-dispensed-with arguments that the defense needs additional time to review some 170,000-plus Michael Cohen-related documents recently dumped on them by federal prosecutors.

The filing marks the second time this month that Trump’s attorneys have moved to adjourn his trial on a 34-count indictment over alleged book-cooking in relation to the Stormy Daniels sex scandal.

In early March, attorney Todd Blanche filed a motion to adjourn the Empire State’s case against Trump until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on presidential immunity issues arguably implicated by some of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s recent pretrial motions.

The adjournment motion also takes issue with Cohen’s and Daniels’ appearances in the media. Trump’s attorneys claim the district attorney’s office has improperly sought to boost both of them.

“The fact that President Trump cannot get a fair trial in New York County right now is underscored by recent actions by DANY and its star witnesses, Michael Cohen and Stephanie Clifford,” the motion goes on. “DANY has used strategic leaks to prejudice President Trump since the early days of its ‘zombie’ investigation in 2018.”

While dated March 18, news of the motion to adjourn came fresh off a tripartite thrashing via court orders by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan earlier on Tuesday — copies of the motion were distributed to the press just moments after three setbacks for the defense were filed on the case’s public docket.

In a quick succession of orders, the ex-president’s attorneys were threatened with sanctions over their too-numerous pretrial filings, the defense was denied a request to unseal certain documents already filed, and Trump himself was subject to a limited gag order.

Trump’s first criminal trial is currently slated to begin with jury selection on April 15 and is expected to last roughly six weeks.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Hush money trial should be delayed due to media bias appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.