NBC news 41 today November 21st 2024 
#DC #CircuitTrump #threats
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday issued a critical opinion that largely supported U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan’s order barring four-time impeached former president Donald Trump from threatening witnesses, court staff and attorneys. — and is using his participation in the 2024 elections to delay his trial. In doing so, panel made clear that Trump’s attempt to play the victim of court interference in his campaign would not work, thus upholding rule of law. Following an indictment for serious crimes, a criminal defendant may lose certain rights, such as the right to own a gun. When this person is allowed to be released on bail, his or her other rights may also be restricted. Passports can be revoked. Defendants may lose right to engage in conduct that threatens the fair administration of justice, including intimidating witnesses and contaminating jury pool. This basic framework applies to Trump as it does to any criminal defendant, the D.C. The Circuit’s opinion upheld Chutkan’s order prohibiting Trump from making statements about ” counsel in the case other than the Special Counsel, court personnel and attorney staff, or family members or attorneys of any attorney.” member of staff – if those statements were made with intent materially interfere with, cause others to materially interfere with, work of lawyer or staff member in criminal case, with knowledge that such interference was likely result.” There is nothing in his ban on speech would remotely violate Trump’s First Amendment rights. In other words, people are not caught up in “carnival atmosphere” and the public also has right to a fair trial. As panel emphasized, the Supreme Court has long held that speech of a person attending a hearing may be restricted in order to prevent material damage. Circuit held district court “had the authority to restrict aspects of Mr. Trump’s speech that pose a significant imminent risk to fair and orderly administration of justice less restrictive alternatives would not adequately address this issue.” “This is risk.” The appellate judges upheld Chutkan’s ruling to the extent that it prohibited him from attacking attendance of reasonably foreseeable witnesses, given that Trump “has repeatedly attacked individuals involved in this case through dagger messages aimed at potential witnesses and their testimony, in addition to threatening public statements.” With respect to lawyers and court personnel, statements made “either the intention of materially interfering with their work or the knowledge that such interference is likely to result” may be appropriately prohibited. Perhaps most importantly, panel stated that Trump’s proposal to postpone the trial until after election would create a perverse incentive that would lead to an accumulation of threats, attacks and incitement. Moreover, court made it clear that it would be free to address storm for months before elections, on grounds that “the general elections are almost a year aw
The Pulse of Washington D.C.
