August 24, 2023
Law360
Judges overseeing Former President Trump’s election interference case in Washington, D.C. and the state racketeering and election meddling case in Georgia have warned Trump to limit his social media use and public statements, avoiding those that could be interpreted as threatening or intimidating co-defendants, witnesses, victims, or the community, or tainting the potential juror pool. Violations could trigger an ascending scale of penalties, from stricter bond conditions to snowballing fines and jail time.
Special Counsel Jerry Goldfeder tells Law360, “I don’t think anyone should underestimate a judge’s authority in controlling the courtroom. Judges become impatient pretty quickly with someone who’s trying to circumvent correct procedure. “
Tracking the argument made by the Trump legal team that limitations violate free speech, he says “[w]hen statements involve obstructing justice, whether it’s attacking witnesses or potential witnesses or attacking the court, First Amendment rights are not necessarily involved.”
He noted that a judge would likely hold a hearing to determine whether Trump's social media posts or statements were actually intended to obstruct justice before levying fines or taking other action against the current front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
He continued, “[a]s these cases unfold, we’ll see what Trump says and what the relative patience of the judges turns out to be.”
Read more here. (Subscription required).
August 24, 2023
Law360
Judges overseeing Former President Trump’s election interference case in Washington, D.C. and the state racketeering and election meddling case in Georgia have warned Trump to limit his social media use and public statements, avoiding those that could be interpreted as threatening or intimidating co-defendants, witnesses, victims, or the community, or tainting the potential juror pool. Violations could trigger an ascending scale of penalties, from stricter bond conditions to snowballing fines and jail time.
Special Counsel Jerry Goldfeder tells Law360, “I don’t think anyone should underestimate a judge’s authority in controlling the courtroom. Judges become impatient pretty quickly with someone who’s trying to circumvent correct procedure. “
Tracking the argument made by the Trump legal team that limitations violate free speech, he says “[w]hen statements involve obstructing justice, whether it’s attacking witnesses or potential witnesses or attacking the court, First Amendment rights are not necessarily involved.”
He noted that a judge would likely hold a hearing to determine whether Trump's social media posts or statements were actually intended to obstruct justice before levying fines or taking other action against the current front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.
He continued, “[a]s these cases unfold, we’ll see what Trump says and what the relative patience of the judges turns out to be.”
Read more here. (Subscription required).
