A New York appeals court rejected former President Donald Trump’s challenge to a gag order on Dec. 14, a day after testimony ended in the civil fraud case brought by the New York attorney general against the former president and his Trump Organization.
President Trump’s attorneys had opened an Article 78 proceeding accusing the judge of acting unlawfully and had asked for a writ of prohibition, which the appellate division panel denied largely based on improper procedure. New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron had issued the order on Oct. 3, the second day of the trial, which prohibited President Trump, and later his attorneys, from making statements about the judge’s staff.
“It is ordered that the motion for leave to appeal is denied; that branch of the motion for expedited resolution of the petition is denied as moot,” the clerk wrote.
Gag Order
President Trump has already paid a $15,000 fine for violating the gag order.
The gag order issued at the beginning of the trial suddenly became a topic of focus in recent weeks, as the defense pursued a mistrial motion and are expected to be preparing their post-trial appeal. Defense attorneys argued on the record that Justice Engoron and his principal law clerk had shown bias against the defense, treating the legal counsel differently from how they treated state attorneys trying the case.
The case centers around the Trump Organization’s statements of financial condition, which the judge already ruled fraudulent in a summary judgment a week before trial. It is a bench trial, since President Trump and Trump Organization executives are being tried under a statute that doesn’t call for a jury, and the attorney general is asking for penalties that only a judge can award.
Despite the pretrial ruling, defense attorneys have sought in courtroom testimonies to show that no fraud occurred. They have also pushed to exclude evidence and testimony that fall outside the statute of limitations as set by the appellate division, but the judge continued to allow them with the caveat that the state attorneys must somehow connect them to relevant claims within the statute of limitations.
State attorneys have repeatedly reminded the defense that there is no point in trying to introduce evidence or testimony to show there was no fraud, as the judge has already ruled there was fraud. Defense attorneys have told the media that they don’t expect a favorable outcome from Justice Engoron.
Toward the end of the trial, defense attorneys argued in court filings that the gag order prevents them from stating on the record instances of what they believe is bias, based on the interactions and behaviors of the court clerk and Justice Engoron.
The appellate division noted that the proper way to appeal the order would have been to file a motion and then an appeal regarding those motions if they were denied. The defense’s attempts to seek “premature” review from a higher court would “undermine the statutory and constitutional regime governing the appellate process,” the order reads.
“Invoking this extraordinary remedy is only appropriate if there exists a substantial claim of an absence of jurisdiction or an act in excess of jurisdiction,” the order reads. The clerk added that the gag order itself had been narrow, and it appeared that the “gravity of potential harm” in not granting relief via the legal vehicles the defense chose to use was “small.”
The gag order and subsequent fines “are reviewable through the ordinary appellate process,” the clerk explained.
