The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has requested clarification from Judge Juan Merchan regarding the restriction on public statements made by former President Donald Trump in relation to the criminal case against him. Prosecutors are concerned that Trump’s recent attacks on the judge and his family members could create a hostile environment for potential trial witnesses and jurors. They are seeking confirmation from the court that the order restricting Trump’s statements also applies to family members of those involved in the case.
In response, Trump’s attorneys argue that the gag order does not specifically mention Judge Merchan and his family members, nor does it apply to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. They believe that any attempt to expand the order in this manner would require a complete adversarial briefing to fully consider the constitutional implications of such restrictions on Trump’s protected campaign speech. The attorneys maintain that the order as written does not apply to family members of the court, the district attorney, or other individuals mentioned in the order.
Judge Merchan issued the gag order earlier this week, directing Trump to refrain from making public statements about potential trial witnesses, prosecutors, court staff members, jurors, and potential jurors in the hush money case against him. This order was in response to the risk Trump’s prior conduct posed to the administration of justice. However, Trump’s campaign spokesman has argued that the order is unconstitutional and inhibits Trump’s ability to engage in core political speech protected under the First Amendment.
The hush money case against Trump involves allegations of falsifying business records in connection with payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The trial for this case is scheduled to begin on April 15. The ongoing legal battle between Trump and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office continues to generate controversy and legal debate over the boundaries of protected speech and the administration of justice in high-profile criminal cases.
