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 former US 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 Merchan, was correct in extending parts of the gag order until Trump is sentenced, writing that “the fair administration of justice necessarily includes sentencing”.
Merchan imposed the gag order in March, a few weeks before the trial started, after prosecutors raised concerns about Trump’s habit of attacking people involved in his cases. During the trial, he held Trump in contempt of court and fined him $10,000 for violations, and threatened to jail him if he did it again.
The judge lifted some restrictions in June, freeing Trump to comment about witnesses and jurors but keeping trial prosecutors, court staffers and their families – including his own daughter – off limits until he is sentenced.
Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, was originally scheduled to be sentenced on 11 July, but Merchan postponed it until 18 September.
after newsletter promotion
Trump has asked to set aside his 34 felony convictions after the US supreme court ruled presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken as executive. Trump’s legal team has not argued that his acts were official in the case, but that certain evidence should not have been admitted because it related to presidential acts. The court ruling also said that evidence couldn’t be used if it constituted an official act, even if the crimes alleged are not themselves official.
Prosecutors have argued the ruling does not affect the convictions in this case. “All of the evidence that he complains of either concerned wholly unofficial conduct, or, at most, official conduct for which any presumption of immunity has been rebutted,” prosecutors wrote.
In his legal case pertaining to illegally keeping classified documents, US district judge Aileen Cannon in Florida dismissed the charges because she found the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel was unconstitutional, an idea raised in a concurring opinion by the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas.
Source: US Politics - theguardian.com
