Alvin Bragg Delivered a Devastating Legal Blow to Trump’s Hush Money Case

by Jessica
42 views

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg Jr., has formally opposed former President Donald Trump’s request to terminate the court orders that restrict his extrajudicial statements in the ongoing hush money case.

The DA’s office asserts that these restrictions, initially imposed on March 26 and April 1, 2024, remain crucial to uphold the integrity of the judicial process despite the conclusion of the trial.

The DA’s letter, addressed to Hon. Juan M. Merchan of the New York State Supreme Court, Criminal Term, Part 59, outlines the reasoning behind maintaining the gag order. It counters the defendant’s June 3, 2024, assertion that the need for such orders has dissipated with the trial’s conclusion.

In a tweet posted on Wednesday, June 5, 2024, the DA’s office contends that the court orders were instituted not only to ensure the fairness of the trial but also to protect broader judicial interests that persist beyond the trial phase.

The DA’s office underscores three main points to support their opposition to lifting the gag order: Prevention of Actual Harm to the Integrity of Proceedings: The March 26 order specifically aims to prevent any potential harm that extrajudicial statements by the defendant could cause to the integrity of the judicial proceedings.

This concern remains valid through the post-trial phase, including sentencing and any subsequent motions. The DA’s office argues that premature termination of the gag order could undermine the continued fair administration of justice. Protection of the Orderly Administration of the Court: The court orders are designed to safeguard the court’s orderly functioning.

The DA’s office notes that the threat to this orderly administration persists, as public statements by the defendant could disrupt the court’s processes, particularly during sensitive phases such as sentencing and the handling of post-trial motions.

Avoidance of Risks to the Administration of Justice: The DA’s office emphasizes that the restrictions also aim to avoid risks to the overall administration of justice. These include preventing statements that could intimidate the court, interfere with the administration of justice, or compromise the integrity of judicial proceedings.

The office argues that these risks have not diminished and that maintaining the gag order is essential to mitigate them. The DA’s office also expresses agreement with the defendant’s proposal for further briefing on the matter. They request that the court adopt the same briefing schedule used for all other post-trial motions, with the defendant’s motion due on June 13 and the People’s response due by June 27.

This schedule will allow both parties to fully articulate their positions regarding the necessity and scope of the court’s orders. In their forthcoming written opposition, the DA’s office plans to elaborate on the ongoing necessity of the gag order.

They intend to demonstrate that the interests protected by the court’s orders—fairness, integrity, and the proper administration of justice—remain critically important even after the trial has concluded. The office will argue that the potential harms and risks that justified the initial imposition of the orders have not dissipated and continue to warrant judicial protection.

Related Posts