This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/01/trump-gag-order-remains-hush-money-case-new-york
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| New York appeals court denies Trump bid to end gag order in hush-money case | New York appeals court denies Trump bid to end gag order in hush-money case |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| Five-judge panel rules that Juan Merchan was correct to extend parts of gag order until Trump is sentenced | Five-judge panel rules that Juan Merchan was correct to extend parts of gag order until Trump is sentenced |
| 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”. | 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. | 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. | 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. | Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, was originally scheduled to be sentenced on 11 July, but Merchan postponed it until 18 September. |
| Sign up to Trump on Trial | Sign up to Trump on Trial |
| Stay up to date on all of Donald Trump’s trials. Guardian staff will send weekly updates each Wednesday – as well as bonus editions on major trial days. | Stay up to date on all of Donald Trump’s trials. Guardian staff will send weekly updates each Wednesday – as well as bonus editions on major trial days. |
| after newsletter promotion | 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. | 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. |