Former President Donald Trump lost a bid on Tuesday to delay his April 15 New York criminal hush money trial while a New York appeals court considers an emergency appeal to overturn a gag order imposed against him.
New York appeals judge Cynthia Kern denied the trial delay bid after hearing arguments from Trump’s legal team and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office on Tuesday, Reuters reported. A full panel of appellate judges will consider Trump’s challenge to the gag order at a later point.
In the gag order, trial Judge Juan Merchan barred Trump from making public statements about family members of Merchan or Bragg that are meant to significantly interfere with work in the case. The judge also prohibited Trump from making such statements when it comes to court staff and prosecutors other than Bragg himself, as well as those individuals’ family members. In addition, Trump can’t comment on potential and actual jurors or on the participation of witnesses in the case.
Trump also lost an emergency bid Monday to delay the trial until after a decision is made on his request to move the case out of Manhattan.
Trump is charged in the New York case with 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up reimbursements for a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, who says she had a sex with Trump while he was married to his wife Melania. Trump denies her claim and has pleaded not guilty in the case.
Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide
Attacks on family members of judges, prosecution
The protections under the gag order for Merchan’s and Bragg’s family members were added after Trump attacked the judge’s daughter in several social media posts, including posting a photo of her. Merchan wrote that Trump has a “pattern of attacking family members of presiding jurists and attorneys assigned to his cases” without any legitimate purpose.
“It merely injects fear in those assigned or called to participate in the proceedings, that not only they, but their family members as well, are ‘fair game’ for Defendant’s vitriol,” Mechan wrote.
In asking for a gag order, Bragg’s office noted that Trump had previously attacked the wife and son of Judge Arthur Engoron, who presided over Trump’s New York civil fraud trial. Trump has also gone after Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s wife and Smith’s sister-in-law, according to the filing. Smith leads the prosecution in the two federal criminal cases Trump faces, one dealing with election interference allegations and the other charging him with mishandling classified documents.
Trump’s legal team has argued that Merchan should be removed from the case because of his daughter’s work for Democratic candidates through the marketing agency she leads, Authentic Campaigns, Inc. They have also said Trump’s posts about the daughter are protected campaign speech because she supports advocacy by Trump’s political opponents.
Threats after Trump social media posts
Bragg’s office also noted various social media posts from Trump, including a picture of Trump wielding a baseball bat at Bragg’s head.
A threat assessment unit in the New York Police Department logged only one threat against Bragg and his office in 2022, but logged 89 such threats against Bragg, his family, or office employees in 2023, starting March 18, 2023 — the day Trump falsely stated on social media that he was about to be arrested in the case, according to Bragg’s office. Later that month, the office received a letter addressed to Bragg that contained white powder with a note stating, “Alvin: I’m going to kill you.”
The 89 threats don’t include “thousands of harassing, racist, and offensive emails, phone calls, and text messages” directed to prosecutors and office staff, Bragg’s office said. Bragg is Black and Trump has called Bragg “racist” for prosecuting him.
Trump’s legal team has argued that the law doesn’t allow restrictions on advocating for using force of breaking the law unless that advocacy is meant to incite imminent unlawful behavior and is likely to do so.
“Speech that falls short of incitement may not be silenced solely because it might inspire others to engage in violence or other unruly behavior – regardless of how predictable (or not) those unruly reactions might be,” his lawyers wrote in the filing.
