Georgia judge hears Trump's First Amendment claim in election interference case

Manhattan DA asks judge in Trump’s hush money case to ‘clarify or confirm’ that gag order applies to family members

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office this week asked a judge presiding over the New York criminal case against Donald Trump to “clarify or confirm” that his earlier order restricting the former president’s public statements about the case and those involved applies to family members.

In a letter dated Thursday and acknowledged as received by the court on Friday, prosecutors asked that the court weigh in on whether a partial gag order issued by Judge Juan Merchan on Tuesday “protects family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and all other individuals mentioned in the Order” and asked that the court “direct that defendant immediately desist from attacks on family members.”

Trump’s attorneys responded in opposition in their own letter on Friday, arguing that the “express terms of the gag order do not apply in the manner claimed” by prosecutors.

Trump has blasted Merchan as “biased and conflicted” while also taking aim at his daughter for a social media post that a court spokesperson said was wrongly attributed to her.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Source link

Judge strikes New Jersey’s ballot design in a win for Senate candidate Andy Kim

A federal judge on Friday granted New Jersey Democratic Rep. Andy Kim’s request for a new ballot design, dealing a blow to the Garden State’s political machine.

Kim, who is running for Senate this year, and two House candidates filed a lawsuit in February challenging the state’s unique ballot design known as the “county line.” In that design, candidates endorsed by a county party are grouped together in a single row or column, and other candidates competing for the same offices appear off the side.

Kim and his allies pushed for an “office-block” ballot, where candidates are instead grouped by office, arguing the county line system unfairly benefited candidates backed by party leaders.

U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi on Friday sided with the plaintiffs, ordering counties to use office-block style ballots for the upcoming June 4 primary.

“The integrity of the democratic process for a primary election is at stake and the remedy Plaintiffs are seeking is extraordinary,” Quraishi wrote in his 49-page ruling, adding that the plaintiffs faced a “particularly heavy” burden to prove their case.

“Nevertheless, the Court finds, based on this record, that Plaintiffs have met their burden and that this is the rare instance when mandatory relief is warranted,” Quraishi wrote.

The county clerks named as defendants in the lawsuit could still fight the decision. A spokesperson for the defense counsel told the New Jersey Globe that lawyers are “evaluating their options to appeal.”

But if Quraishi’s decision stands, it would be a major blow to the Democratic Party machine in New Jersey, where county party chairs can wield significant power. In some of of the most Democratic counties, the party endorsement is decided by a single party chair. Kim and his allies argued that process is ultimately undemocratic.

“Today’s decision is a victory for a fairer, more democratic politics in New Jersey,” Kim said in a statement on Friday. “It’s a victory built from the incredible grassroots work of activists across our state who saw an undemocratic system marginalizing the voices of voters, and worked tirelessly to fix it.”

Kim’s lawsuit moved forward even after his chief rival in the Democratic Senate primary, first lady Tammy Murphy, ended her campaign on Sunday. While Kim had won some county lines where the party’s endorsement was decided at conventions, Murphy had the backing of several party chairs who were the sole arbiters of their counties’ endorsements.

Kim launched his Senate campaign in September after Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez was indicted on federal bribery charges. Menenedez, who has denied any wrongdoing, has said he could run for re-election as an independent if he is exonerated.

Source link

‘Rust’ armorer to stay in jail, judge refuses request for new trial in fatal shooting of film’s cinematographer

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, the armorer on the Alec Baldwin film “Rust,” will remain in jail while her lawyers appeal her conviction in the death of the film’s cinematographer.

A Santa Fe judge denied a defense request for release on Friday, and refused to order a new trial in the case.

“Keep in mind there was a death that the jury determined was caused by her,” said Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer. “So I am not releasing her.”

Gutierrez-Reed is scheduled to be sentenced on April 15, and faces up to 18 months in prison.

Gutierrez-Reed was convicted on March 6 of involuntary manslaughter after a two-week trial. Prosecutors alleged that she inadvertently brought live bullets onto the set — a major breach of film safety protocols — and failed to properly check the rounds before loading one of them into Baldwin’s gun.

Baldwin is scheduled to face his own involuntary manslaughter trial in July for pointing the gun at the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, and, allegedly, pulling the trigger.

Gutierrez Reed was taken into custody following the jury’s verdict. A week later, her lawyers filed an emergency motion for release, citing a new ruling from the New Mexico Supreme Court in another case, State v. Taylor. In that case, the court overturned a guilty verdict on the grounds that the jury instructions were confusing.

The defense argued that the instructions in the Gutierrez Reed case were similarly confusing, and that the Taylor case made it nearly certain that her conviction would be overturned. Prosecutors pushed back, however, arguing that the two cases were dissimilar.

In the Taylor case, the jurors were asked to convict based on four separate acts joined by an “and/or” clause. The Supreme Court warned judges against using “and/or” in jury instructions, finding that it created a potential for confusion. In the Gutierrez Reed case, however, only two acts were separated by the “and/or” clause.

Marlowe Sommer agreed with the prosecution that the cases are distinguishable.

“I am denying your motion,” she said. “I do not think that Taylor requires a new trial in this case.”

She said she would issue a written order on Monday.

The court hearing was held remotely via Google Meet. Gutierrez Reed appeared from the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Facility.

Source link

Georgia Republican Party official voted illegally nine times, judge rules

A judge ruled this week that a top Georgia Republican Party official, who has promoted former President Donald Trump’s claims of widespread voter fraud affecting the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, has repeatedly voted illegally.

Brian Pritchard, first vice chairman of the Georgia Republican Party and conservative talk show host, was fined $5,000 for voting illegally and registering to vote while serving a sentence for a felony conviction. Pritchard was also ordered not to commit further violations, to face public reprimand for his conduct, and to pay the State Election Board’s investigative costs.

Administrative Law Judge Lisa Boggs affirmed in a 25-page ruling on Wednesday the board’s finding that Pritchard had voted illegally nine times in defiance of his extended probation in connection with a pair of felony convictions dating back nearly 30 years.

Pritchard was initially sentenced in 1996 to three years’ probation in connection with felony forgery charges in Pennsylvania, according to the ruling.

Pritchard’s probation was revoked three times, including in 1999, when he moved to Georgia, and again in 2002 and 2004. A judge in 2004 imposed a new seven-year probationary sentence, which made Pritchard illegible to vote in the state until 2011.

In 2008, Pritchard filled out a voter registration form with Gilmer County’s Board of Elections and signed a sworn statement asserting that he was “not serving a sentence for having been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude.” Pritchard cast a series of Georgia ballots, including four that year in primary and general elections and runoffs, and another five in 2010 in special elections, primaries, and the general election.

Pritchard testified that “he was not aware of anything that would have prevented him from registering to vote when he signed the application” and that he didn’t believe three years of probation remained in his sentence, according to court documents.

Boggs said in Wednesday’s ruling that “upon careful consideration of the evidence in its totality the Court does not find the Respondent’s explanations credible or convincing. At the very least, even if the Court accepts he did not know about his felony sentences, the record before this Court demonstrates that he should have known.”

An attorney for Pritchard and the Georgia Republican Party did not immediately respond to NBC News’ request for comment on Thursday night.

A questionnaire filled out by Pritchard when he was running for first vice chairman of the Georgia Republican Party last year said that he sought to “leverage the influence of the grassroots conservative movement to improve election integrity.”

Before becoming the state party’s first vice chairman, Pritchard was defeated in a special election for a state House seat held by Speaker David Ralston last year.

While running for that seat, he blasted news stories surfacing around his voting record, suggesting in a 2022 post on his website that his detractors “want to try to manipulate an election and try to make me look like public enemy number one.”

Pritchard has also cast doubt over President Joe Biden legitimately winning the 2020 presidential election, saying during an episode of his talk show in 2022, while gesturing at a button on his microphone, “The button says ‘stolen.’ This is what they did to us because I do not believe 81 million people voted for this guy.”

Zoë Richards

Dareh Gregorian contributed.

Source link

Georgia judge hears Trump’s First Amendment claim in election interference case

Georgia judge hears Trump’s First Amendment claim in election interference case – CBS News

Watch CBS News

Former President Donald Trump’s lawyers argue his Fulton County election interference case should be dismissed because the acts he is charged with are protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment. CBS News campaign reporter Katrina Kaufman has the latest on the case.

Source link

Hunter Biden asks judge to dismiss tax charges, saying they’re politically motivated

Hunter Biden’s attorneys argued Wednesday that the federal tax charges the president’s son is facing in California should be dismissed because they were part of a prosecution fueled by politics.

Abbe Lowell, lead counsel for Biden, argued the case was the “least ordinary prosecution a person could imagine”, claiming irregularities in how it was initiated and investigated.

But federal prosecutors have rebuffed the claims. In legal filings made in recent weeks, special counsel David Weiss’ office said politics had no bearing on the case and dismissed claims that the charges were pursued to appease Republicans, calling the assertion “conspiratorial” and “nothing more than a house of cards.”

U.S District Judge Mark Scarsi appeared doubtful of the argument during the hearing, pointing to a lack of evidence to support the assertion that politics had any influence on the charges.

Biden did not appear for the hearing Wednesday, but he pleaded not guilty to nine federal tax charges in the Central District of California in January, after federal prosecutors alleged he engaged in “a four-year scheme” to avoid paying at least $1.4 million in federal taxes and charged him with failure to file and pay taxes, tax evasion and filing a false tax return.

Biden’s attorneys also argued that the tax charges violated a diversion agreement between federal prosecutors and the president’s son last year.

A plea agreement on two misdemeanor tax charges and a diversion agreement stemming from a firearms charge unraveled in court in July 2023, when the judge questioned whether the agreement would allow Biden to avoid potential future charges. Biden’s attorneys maintained the agreement was still legally binding. Federal prosecutors said the “proposed agreement” had not been approved the U.S. Office of Probation and Pretrial Services and had not yet gone into effect.

Judge Scarsi will issue a decision on April 17.

The motion to dismiss hearing comes as Republican-led congressional committees are winding down an impeachment inquiry into President Biden that centered in part on whether the president profited from Hunter Biden’s business ventures and whether senior officials in the Biden administration took steps to impede criminal probes into the president’s son.

In a closed-door deposition before lawmakers in February, Hunter Biden dismissed the inquiry as a “baseless and destructive political charade,” contending his father had no involvement in his business dealings.

Rep. James Comer, Republican of Kentucky and chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, signaled he will prepare criminal referrals at the conclusion of the investigation. Critics of the inquiry say the GOP-led congressional committees have not yet produced any evidence of wrongdoing by Mr. Biden.

Elli Fitzgerald contributed reporting.

Source link

Judge recommends John Eastman be disbarred in California

A judge on Wednesday recommended that John Eastman, a co-defendant of Donald Trump in the Georgia election interference case, be disbarred in California.

“In view of the circumstances surrounding Eastman’s misconduct and balancing the aggravation and mitigation, the court recommends that Eastman be disbarred,” wrote Judge Yvette D. Roland.

“After full consideration of the record,” the court found that the State Bar of California’s Chief Trial Counsel’s Office, had satisfied its burden of proving a vast majority of its allegations against Eastman.

Eastman was hit with 11 disciplinary charges tied to allegations that he promoted a strategy that wasn’t backed by facts or law, which entailed a plan to have then-Vice President Mike Pence reject electoral votes cast for Joe Biden during a joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.

Reached for comment, an attorney for Eastman told NBC News his legal team is still processing the judge’s ruling.

The judge’s recommendation comes two years after the State Bar of California announced an ethics investigation into Eastman’s conduct. In 2023, the State Bar asked the court to revoke Eastman’s license to practice law in California.

Eastman is also facing other legal challenges stemming from his conduct in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

In August, he was charged with orchestrating the so-called fake electors scheme designed to keep Trump in office after the 2020 presidential election, was indicted along with 18 co-defendants for allegedly violating Georgia’s racketeering laws.

Four of the defendants have pleaded guilty, while Eastman is among those who, like Trump, have pleaded not guilty.

Source link

Hunter Biden asks judge to dismiss tax charges

Hunter Biden asks judge to dismiss tax charges – CBS News

Watch CBS News

Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, is asking a Los Angeles judge Wednesday to dismiss tax charges against him, claiming politics have compromised the case. CBS News’ Erica Brown reports.

Source link

Trump ramps up attacks on judge in hush money case following gag order

Less than 24 hours after getting hit with a partial gag order in the New York criminal case involving his alleged falsification of business records, former President Donald Trump repeatedly lashed out at one person who’s not covered by the ruling — the judge.

In a series of posts on his social media platform, Trump called Judge Juan Merchan “biased and conflicted” while also taking aim at the judge’s daughter for a second day in a row.

In a ruling Tuesday, Merchan noted the impending April 15 trial date and said Trump must “refrain” from “making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation” in the case, as well as about individual prosecutors and court staff and their family members.

The order did not mention the judge and his family members — a loophole Trump exploited Wednesday.

“This Judge, by issuing a vicious ‘Gag Order,’ is wrongfully attempting to deprive me of my First Amendment Right to speak out against the Weaponization of Law Enforcement,” Trump wrote, saying the judge “is suffering from an acute case of Trump Derangement Syndrome” and should recuse himself from the case.

The attacks continue a pattern of Trump lashing out at judges and the judicial system on social media after getting an adverse ruling in court.

As he’d done previously, Trump also went after Merchan’s daughter, who’s worked at a progressive digital marketing agency that has worked for many Democratic candidates.

“Maybe the Judge is such a hater because his daughter makes money by working to ‘Get Trump,'” one of his posts said. He also accused her of having posted a picture of him behind bars on social media —an allegation that appears to have originated from a Trump ally, far right activist and conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer.

Loomer made a similar allegation last year involving the wife of the judge who presided over Trump’s civil fraud trial, accusing her of having shared anti-Trump memes on social media.

Trump then attacked the judge’s wife, who was not protected by the partial gag order Engoron had put in place in that case.

A spokesman for the state court system said then that the posts Loomer promoted were not from the judge’s wife.

“Justice Engoron’s wife has sent no social media posts regarding the former president. They are not hers,” said the spokesman, Al Baker.

Trump never acknowledged or apologized for the apparent false accusation.

NBC News has reached out to the court system for comment on the new Loomer/Trump accusation.

The handle used in the X profile highlighted by Loomer had been previously associated with Merchan’s daughter in 2022, but the profile Loomer shared said the person joined X in April of 2023, the same month far right news outlets wrote critical stories about the daughter.

An NBC News analysis earlier this year of Trump’s posts on his social media platform Truth Social found his unprecedented attacks on the judicial system were frequently tied to developments in his court cases, and at times outnumbered his posts about his re-election bid.

Trump’s criticism often comes at a cost for his targets. Merchan, Engoron and the judge presiding over his federal election interference case in Washington, D.C., Tanya Chutkan, have all been recipients of threats following Trump’s complaints.

Merchan cited his experience when he handed down his ruling Tuesday blocking Trump from making comments about individual prosecutors (with the exception of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg), court staff, their family members, and jurors and potential jurors.

“Although this Court did not issue an order restricting Defendant’s speech at the inception of this case, choosing instead to issue an admonition, given the nature and impact of the statements made against this Court and a family member thereof, the District Attorney and an Assistant District Attorney, the witnesses in this case, as well as the nature and impact of the extrajudicial statements made by Defendant in the D.C. Circuit case (which resulted in the D.C. Circuit issuing an order restricting his speech), and given that the eve of trial is upon us, it is without question that the imminency of the risk of harm is now paramount,” Merchan wrote.

Trump’s attorneys had argued in court filings that because their client is the presumptive Republican nominee for president he “must have unfettered access to the voting public to respond to attacks from political opponents.”

Merchan said in his ruling that Trump’s public commentary in this case and others has gone “far beyond defending himself against attacks.”

“Indeed, his statements were threatening, inflammatory” and “denigrating,” and the “consequences of those statements included not only fear on the part of the individual targeted, but also the assignment of increased security resources to investigate threats and protect the individuals and family members thereof,” the judge wrote.

He said he was acting now “given that the eve of trial is upon us” and “it is without question that the imminency of the risk of harm is now paramount.”

The DA’s case alleges Trump falsified business records to cover up payments he was making to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen as repayment for a $130,000 hush money payment Cohen had doled out to adult film star Stormy Daniels in the closing days of the 2016 campaign. Daniels claimed she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, which Trump denies.

Trump has pleaded not guilty in the case and maintains the charges are part of a politically orchestrated witch hunt against him.

Source link

Judge in hush money case hits Trump with partial gag order

The judge presiding over the New York criminal case against Donald Trump on Tuesday slapped the former president with a partial gag order.

The ruling from Judge Juan Merchan orders Trump to “refrain” from “making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation” in the falsifying business records case, as well as about individual prosecutors, court staff, jurors and potential jurors.

The order does not apply to the judge or Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

The judge said the move was necessary now because “the Defendant’s prior extrajudicial statements establishes a sufficient risk to the administration of justice” and “there exists no less restrictive means to prevent such risk.”

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung called the order “unconstitutional” and argued that it prevents Trump from “engaging in core political speech, which is entitled to the highest level of protection under the First Amendment.”

Trump’s attorneys had argued in court filings that because he is the presumptive Republican nominee for president he “must have unfettered access to the voting public to respond to attacks from political opponents.”

Merchan said he was “unpersuaded” by those arguments, and that Trump’s public commentary on the case has gone “far beyond defending himself against attacks.”

The judge noted Trump’s past statements in this case and others included “threatening, inflammatory,” and “denigrating” language, and said similar attacks would “undoubtedly risk impeding the orderly administration of the Court.”

Merchan also suggested he had firsthand knowledge about being a subject of Trump’s comments, and cited “the nature and impact of the statements made against this Court and a family member,” in addition to others.

The ruling was handed down hours after Trump blasted the judge, the judge’s daughter, Bragg and former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, a key witness in the case, on his social media platform Truth Social. The post referred to Cohen as a “liar and felon,” and also referred to a former prosecutor in the case, Mark Pomerantz, as a “dirtbag lawyer.”

Cohen said in a statement he was grateful for the judge’s action.

“I want to thank Judge Merchan for imposing the gag order as I have been under relentless assault from Donald’s MAGA supporters,” he said. “Nevertheless, knowing Donald as well as I do, he will seek to defy the gag order by employing others within his circle to do his bidding; regardless of consequence.”

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to criminal charges that included making hush money deals for women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump.

The DA’s case is centered on payments Trump made to reimburse Cohen for the $130,000 he paid one of the women, adult film star Stormy Daniels, to stay quiet about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with Trump.

Trump has denied that he slept with Daniels, but he has acknowledged repaying Cohen. He’s pleaded not guilty to charges that he “repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records.”

The case is set to go trial April 15.

Merchan said “given that the eve of trial is upon us, it is without question that the imminency of the risk of harm is now paramount.”

Tuesday’s ruling is the third partial gag order Trump has been hit with in the past year. In the civil fraud trial that concluded in January, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered Trump and his attorneys not to talk about his law clerk or other court staffers after the former president’s insistence that the clerk was biased led to a “deluge” of threats against her.

Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over Trump’s federal election interference case in Washington, D.C., issued a ruling in October that bars him from trashing witnesses and individual prosecutors and court staff.

Chutkan said Trump could continue to “criticize the current administration and assert his belief that this prosecution is politically motivated.” But, she added, his “first amendment freedoms do not allow him to launch a pre-trial smear campaign against participating government staff, their families and foreseeable witnesses.”

An appeals court later narrowed the order, allowing Trump some leeway to speak out if a high-profile witness made disparaging comments about him. That case has been paused while the Supreme Court weighs Trump’s presidential immunity defense.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office had asked Merchan for the partial gag order last month, arguing that Trump “has a long history of making public and inflammatory remarks about the participants in various judicial proceedings against him, including jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and court staff.”

“Those remarks, as well as the inevitable reactions they incite from defendant’s followers and allies, pose a significant and imminent threat to the orderly administration of this criminal proceeding and a substantial likelihood of causing material prejudice,” Bragg’s office said at the time.

The gag order ruling was one of three that Merchan handed down Tuesday.

In one, he rejected Trump’s efforts to undo a new process for filing pre-trial motions. Merchan had changed the procedure after Trump’s attorneys tried raising a presidential immunity defense and asked the judge to delay the trial until after the Supreme Court ruled in the federal election interference case. The Trump request came just over two weeks before the hush money case was originally scheduled to go trial.

In response, Merchan said both sides had to ask him for permission to file any other motions. Trump’s attorneys argued that it would violate their client’s right to a fair trial. Merchan disagreed, saying he has the “inherent authority” to do so.

In the third ruling, Merchan shot down Trump’s motion asking that documents be unsealed and that public filings in the case be immediately visible on the court docket. The judge noted there’s a protective order barring some information from being released publicly and said “it is this Court’s understanding that everything that is normally maintained in a court file is currently contained in the public file.”

“To the extent Defendant believes that anything normally maintained that is not subject to the Protective Order or governing law, is not in the court file, he should identify the document to the Court and to the People. The Court will consider any objections and rule on the matter,” Merchan added.

News organizations, including the NBC News Group, had asked the judge to more promptly file the motions to the public docket and to put emails between the parties on the docket as well. The judge did not address the letter from the media organizations in Tuesday’s order.

Source link