“A Significant And Imminent Threat”

The New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department rejected efforts to set aside gag orders in the fraud case against Donald Trump. 

Petitioner’s contention that the conclusion of trial constitutes a change in circumstances warranting termination of the remaining Restraining Order provision is unavailing. Courts are empowered to protect against the “‘unfair administration of justice’” (United States v Trump, 88 F4th 990, 1008 [DC Cir 2023], quoting Landmark Communications, Inc. v Virginia, 435 US 829, 844 [1978]). The fair administration of justice necessarily includes sentencing, which is “a critical stage of the criminal proceeding” (People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712 [1993]). Indeed, under the CPL, a “criminal action . . . terminates with the imposition of sentence or some other final disposition in a criminal court” (CPL 1.20[16][c]), neither of which has occurred here. Accordingly, since the underlying criminal action remains pending, Justice Merchan did not act in excess of jurisdiction by maintaining the narrowly tailored protections in paragraph (b) of the Restraining order. Contrary to petitioner’s contentions, the People’s evidentiary submissions in opposition to his motion in Supreme Court demonstrate that threats received by District Attorney staff after the jury verdict continued to pose a significant and imminent threat.

(Mike Frisch)