appeals court - Global pulse News
  • Appeals court rejects Steve Bannon’s quote to avoid of jail

    Appeals court rejects Steve Bannon’s quote to avoid of jail

    WASHINGTON — An appeals court rejected previous Trump consultant Steve Bannon’s demand to stay out of jail Thursday while he appeals his conviction on contempt of Congress charges.

    The three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected Bannon’s demand in a 2-1 judgment, with 2 judges choosing that the arguments in Bannon’s demand do not provide a “significant concern” of law that might reverse his conviction.

    “Bannon’s proposition—that to show willful default the federal government should develop that the witness understood that his conduct was illegal—cannot be fixed up with the Supreme Court’s technique to the statute,” stated the order by Judges Cornelia Pillard and Bradley Garcia.

    A 3rd judge, Justin Walker, dissented, composing that arguments about Bannon’s frame of mind when he declined to adhere to a subpoena from your home Jan. 6 committee provided a “close concern” that might be chosen in Bannon’s favor by the Supreme Court.

    “That close concern might well have actually mattered at Bannon’s trial,” Walker composed.

    Bannon was purchased this month to report to jail on July 1. In previous filings before the D.C. Circuit, his attorneys revealed their intent to look for remedy for the Supreme Court if the appeals court panel ruled versus them.

    Bannon’s group submitted the not successful emergency situation movement on June 11 asking the federal appeals court to overthrow a lower court’s judgment that he should report to jail in July.

    Bannon’s legal representative Trent McCotter did not right away react to an ask for remark Thursday night.

    An attorney who has actually formerly represented Bannon, David Schoen, stated he “gave up the case last Tuesday” after he saw the movement at problem had actually been submitted, stating he “had absolutely nothing to do with the movement.”

    An appeals court in Might maintained Bannon’s conviction on 2 counts of contempt of Congress after he defied a subpoena for files connected to the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. He was founded guilty in 2022 and sentenced to 4 months in jail.

    This post was initially released on NBCNews.com

  • Kari Lake loses Arizona appeals court obstacle of 2022 loss in guv race

    Kari Lake loses Arizona appeals court obstacle of 2022 loss in guv race

    PHOENIX (AP) — Republican Kari Lake has actually lost an Arizona appeals court obstacle arguing that countless Phoenix-area mail tally signatures were not correctly validated when she lost the 2022 guv election to Democrat Katie Hobbs.

    The state Court of Appeals supported on Tuesday a judge’s finding in 2015 that Lake stopped working to show disparities in signatures were ignored by election confirmation staffers in Maricopa County, home to more than 60% of citizens in the state.

    Lake’s lawyer, Bryan James Blehm, did not react Wednesday to telephone and e-mail messages about the appeals court choice and whether Lake would attract the Arizona Supreme Court.

    Blehm likewise did not react to ask for remark about sanctions troubled him last Friday by the State Bar of Arizona for “unquestionably incorrect” representations to the state Supreme Court while dealing with Lake election difficulties. His 60-day suspension works July 7.

    Lake is a previous tv news anchor who likewise ran unsuccessfully for an Arizona U.S. Senate seat in 2015. She has actually been amongst the most singing of GOP prospects promoting previous President Donald Trump’s incorrect claims that the 2020 governmental election was taken from him.

    Lake has actually lost a number of court difficulties after declining to acknowledge she lost the 2022 guv election to Hobbs by more than 17,000 votes.

    Administering Appeals Court Judge Sean Brearcliffe kept in mind in Tuesday’s judgment that Lake argued more than 8,000 tallies were “maliciously misconfigured to trigger a tabulator rejection” and were not counted.

    Even if all 8,000 of the apparently uncounted votes had actually been for Lake, Brearcliffe composed, it would not have actually gotten rid of the 17,000-vote differential in between Lake and Hobbs.

  • Appeals court stops Trump’s Georgia case throughout appeal of order enabling Willis to remain on case

    Appeals court stops Trump’s Georgia case throughout appeal of order enabling Willis to remain on case

    ATLANTA (AP) — An appeals court has actually stopped the Georgia election disturbance case versus previous President Donald Trump and others while it evaluates the lower court judge’s judgment enabling Fulton County District Lawyer Fani Willis to stay on the case.

    The Georgia Court of Appeals’ order on Wednesday avoids Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee from moving on with pretrial movements as he had actually prepared while the appeal is pending. While it was currently not likely that the case would go to trial before the November basic election, when Trump is anticipated to be the Republican candidate for president, this makes that a lot more particular.

    The appeals court on Monday docketed the appeals submitted by Trump and 8 others and stated that “if oral argument is asked for and approved” it is tentatively set up for Oct. 4. The court will then have up until mid-March to rule, and the losing side will have the ability to interest the Georgia Supreme Court.

    A representative for Willis decreased to talk about the appeals court judgment.

    A Fulton County grand jury in August prosecuted Trump and 18 others, implicating them of taking part in a vast plan to unlawfully attempt to reverse the 2020 governmental election in Georgia. 4 offenders have actually pleaded guilty after reaching handle district attorneys, however Trump and the others have actually pleaded innocent. It is among 4 criminal cases versus Trump.

    Trump and 8 other offenders had actually attempted to get Willis and her workplace eliminated from the case, arguing that a romantic relationship she had with unique district attorney Nathan Wade developed a dispute of interest. McAfee in March discovered that no dispute of interest existed that need to require Willis off the case, however he approved a demand from Trump and the other offenders to look for an appeal of his judgment from the state Court of Appeals.

    McAfee composed that “a smell of mendacity stays.” He stated “sensible concerns” over whether Willis and Wade had actually affirmed honestly about the timing of their relationship “additional underpin the finding of a look of impropriety and the requirement to make proportional efforts to treat it.” He stated Willis might stay on the case just if Wade left, and the unique district attorney sent his resignation hours later on.

    The claims that Willis had actually poorly gained from her love with Wade led to a turbulent number of months in the event as intimate information of Willis and Wade’s individual lives were aired in court in mid-February.

  • Appeals court rejects Hunter Biden request to dismiss gun charges

    Appeals court rejects Hunter Biden request to dismiss gun charges

    Hunter Biden’s federal gun case is set to go to trial early next month after an appeals court denied his request to dismiss his charges.

    In a ruling Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court’s rejection of his motions to dismiss is not appealable before final judgment.

    U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika, who is overseeing Biden’s Delaware gun case, also confirmed a June 3 start date for a jury trial. Noreika later denied another motion from Biden to dismiss the case on Second Amendment grounds.

    Biden can still take his appeal to the full bench of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court. His attorney Abbe Lowell has said they will continue to seek a dismissal.

    The appeals court ruling means that Biden is set to the be first child of a sitting president to undergo a criminal trial. He was indicted in September on charges related to possessing a gun while on narcotics. The indictment accuses him of falsely declaring on a form that he was not using illegal drugs when he bought a revolver in 2018. He has pleaded not guilty.

    Biden has also been a central figure in House Republicans’ impeachment efforts against his father. The president’s only living son, he has spoken openly about his struggles with drug addiction, which he says the GOP has been “weaponizing” to hurt the president.

    Biden is also facing a late June trial in his federal tax case. He has also pleaded not guilty to those charges.

    This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

    Source link

  • Georgia appeals court to hear Trump’s bid to disqualify Fani Willis

    Georgia appeals court to hear Trump’s bid to disqualify Fani Willis

    By Andrew Goudsward

    (Reuters) – Georgia’s appeals court has agreed to hear former U.S. President Donald Trump’s bid to disqualify the district attorney prosecuting him over his attempts to undue his defeat in the 2020 election, according to a court order on Tuesday.

    The ruling prolongs the legal battle over a former romance between Fani Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, and a one-time top deputy, a relationship defense lawyers have used to try to derail the case.

    Trump and eight of his co-defendants charged in the Georgia state court have urged the appeals court to overturn a judge’s March ruling that allowed Willis to continue supervising the prosecution.

    The court’s decision to hear the appeal before trial could cause further delays in the case, one of four criminal prosecutions facing Trump as he seeks to unseat Democratic President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 election. Trump has pleaded not guilty and accused prosecutors of a politically motivated effort to damage his campaign.

    (Reporting by Andrew Goudsward; Editing by Scott Malone, Lisa Shumaker and Susan Heavey)

    Source link

  • Georgia appeals court agrees to review ruling allowing Fani Willis to stay on Trump election case

    Georgia appeals court agrees to review ruling allowing Fani Willis to stay on Trump election case

    ATLANTA (AP) — A Georgia appeals court on Wednesday agreed to review a lower court ruling allowing Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to continue to prosecute the election interference case she brought against former President Donald Trump.

    Trump and some other defendants in the case had tried to get Willis and her office removed from the case, saying her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest. Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee in March found that no conflict of interest existed that should force Willis off the case, but he granted a request from Trump and the other defendants to seek an appeal of his ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals.

    That intermediate appeals court agreed on Wednesday to take up the case. Once it rules, the losing side could ask the Georgia Supreme Court to consider an appeal.

    The appeals court’s decision to consider the case seems likely to cause a delay in a case and further reduce the possibility that it will get to trial before the November general election, when Trump is expected to be the Republican nominee for president.

    In his order, McAfee said he planned to continue to address other pretrial motions “regardless of whether the petition is granted … and even if any subsequent appeal is expedited by the appellate court.” But Trump and the others could ask the Court of Appeals to stay the case while the appeal is pending.

    McAfee wrote in his order in March that the prosecution was “encumbered by an appearance of impropriety.” He said Willis could remain on the case only if Wade left, and the special prosecutor submitted his resignation hours later.

    The allegations that Willis had improperly benefited from her romance with Wade resulted in a tumultuous couple of months in the case as intimate details of Willis and Wade’s personal lives were aired in court in mid-February. The serious charges in one of four criminal cases against the Republican former president were largely overshadowed by the love lives of the prosecutors.

    Trump and 18 others were indicted in August, accused of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn his narrow 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia.

    All of the defendants were charged with violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, law, an expansive anti-racketeering statute. Four people charged in the case have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump and the others have pleaded not guilty.

    Trump and other defendants had argued in their appeal application that McAfee was wrong not to remove both Willis and Wade, writing that “providing DA Willis with the option to simply remove Wade confounds logic and is contrary to Georgia law.”

    The allegations against Willis first surfaced in a motion filed in early January by Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer for former Trump campaign staffer and onetime White House aide Michael Roman. The motion alleged that Willis and Wade were involved in an inappropriate romantic relationship and that Willis paid Wade large sums for his work and then benefitted when he paid for lavish vacations.

    Willis and Wade acknowledged the relationship but said they didn’t begin dating until the spring of 2022, after Wade was hired in November 2021, and their romance ended last summer. They also testified that they split travel costs roughly evenly, with Willis often paying expenses or reimbursing Wade in cash.

    Source link

  • New York court overturns 2020 rape conviction

    New York court overturns 2020 rape conviction

    The disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on sex crimes was overturned by a New York appeals court on Thursday.

    The state of New York court of appeals ruled that the judge who oversaw Weinstein’s 2020 conviction was mistaken in allowing other women whose accusations were not a part of the 2020 case to testify.

    The original 2020 judgement was overturned by a single vote, the New York Times reported.

    Prosecutors in the firestorm case that kicked off the #MeToo movement must determine whether they will retry Weinstein, who was sentenced to 23 years in prison in 2020 for two sex crimes: forcing oral sex on a production assistant in 2006 as well as rape in the third degree of an actor in 2013.

    He will remain imprisoned because he was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape and sentenced to 16 years in prison. Weinstein was acquitted in Los Angeles on charges involving one of the women who testified in New York.

    The state court of appeals ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures – an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein. The court ordered a new trial. His accusers could again be forced to relive their traumas on the witness stand.

    Survivors of Weinstein shared their disappointment and outrage at the latest ruling. The actress Ashley Judd, one of the first people to publicly share allegations against Weinstein, told the New York Times: “That’s really hard for the survivors … We still live in our truth. And we know what happened.”

    Source link

  • With just 5 days before hush money trial begins, Trump’s lawyers file another last-ditch appeal

    With just 5 days before hush money trial begins, Trump’s lawyers file another last-ditch appeal

    After suffering a string of defeats in their efforts to delay or kill the New York hush money trial, lawyers for former President Donald Trump file another appeal to try to remove Judge Juan Merchan from the proceedings and to challenge his ruling that Trump is not protected from prosecution by presidential immunity. Court filings made public Tuesday also revealed that Trump’s lawyers subpoenaed the wrong man. Here are the latest legal developments involving the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

    New York hush money

    Trump files another last-ditch attempt to delay hush money trial

    Key players: Judge Juan Merchan, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, adult film star Stormy Daniels, New York Associate Justice Cynthia Kern

    • On Wednesday, Trump’s lawyers appealed Merchan’s ruling that presidential immunity did not protect Trump from being prosecuted for violating New York tax and campaign finance laws when he paid Daniels $130,000 during the 2016 presidential election to hide an alleged extramarital affair with Daniels, CNN reported.

    • The two-page filing with a New York appeals court also challenged Merchan’s decision not to recuse himself from the case brought by Bragg based on how the judge has handled the case.

    • The trial is scheduled to begin on April 15.

    • This week alone, appeals court judges have denied Trump’s efforts to delay the trial while Trump appeals Merchan’s refusal to change the venue from Manhattan to Staten Island. He is also appealing the judge’s expansion of a gag order that prevents Trump from attacking witnesses, court staff and their families.

    • Trump’s lawyers have also unsuccessfully appealed Merchan’s refusal to recuse himself from the case, his ruling that Daniels can testify, as well as his decision that the case can move forward on the merits and be held in state, rather than federal, court.

    • With Tuesday’s latest ruling from Kern, Trump has now lost 10 previous attempts to delay the start of the hush money trial.

    Why it matters: Trump’s lawyers have aggressively sought to keep the first criminal case against a former U.S. president from going to trial. Time is running out on that effort, however.

    Trump lawyers subpoena the wrong man

    Key players: Trump lawyer Todd Blanche, Bragg, Daniels, DA investigator Jeremy Rosenberg, Brooklyn resident with no connection to the case Jeremy Rosenberg

    • Court filings released Tuesday show that Trump’s lawyers issued a subpoena in the hush money case to the wrong man, ABC News reported.

    • Blanche was seeking to subpoena the Jeremy Rosenberg who worked in Bragg’s office for information on the years-long investigation of Trump’s payment of $130,000 to Daniels. Instead, he sent it to a man with the same name who lives in Brooklyn and has no relationship to the case.

    • “I don’t have any files for you,” the Brooklyn Rosenberg responded to Blanche’s subpoena.

    • Prosecutors on Bragg’s team told the court that the Jeremy Rosenberg who, in fact, investigated Trump’s payment to Daniels had never heard from Trump’s lawyers.

    • “After receiving defendant’s pre-motion letter, the People spoke with Mr. Rosenberg’s counsel, who informed the People that Mr. Rosenberg was not, in fact, served with the subpoena,” prosecutors wrote.

    • Blanche sent Brooklyn resident Rosenberg $15 to cover mailing fees for the requested documents, and in his response, Rosenberg informed the lawyer that he was keeping that money.

    • “I’m keeping the fifteen dollars,” he wrote.

    • Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to hide the payment to Daniels.

    Why it matters: A former prosecutor, Blanche does not have extensive experience as a defense attorney.

    Recommended reading

    _________________

    Tuesday, April 9

    _________________

    For the second time in two days, an appeals court judge rejects a motion by former President Donald Trump that would have delayed the April 15 start of his hush money trial. New York Associate Justice Cynthia Kern declines Trump’s motion, which argued that the case should be postponed while he appeals Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order preventing Trump from commenting on witnesses, court staff and their families during the trial. Here are the latest legal developments involving the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024.

    New York hush money

    Appeals court judge rejects Trump bid to delay trial over gag order challenge

    Key players: New York Associate Justice Cynthia Kern, Judge Juan Merchan, Merchan’s daughter Loren Merchan, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, adult film star Stormy Daniels

    • Only minutes after hearing arguments from Trump’s lawyers on a motion to delay the start of the trial until after they could appeal Merchan’s expanded gag order, Kern denied the motion, CNN reported.

    • Although Trump is appealing Kern’s decision with the full appeals court, that will not delay the Monday start of the hush money trial, meaning that Trump will still be bound by Merchan’s gag order until at least April 29, when the appeals court has requested written arguments on the matter.

    • Merchan expanded his original gag order on Trump after the former president repeatedly attacked his daughter, who served as president for Authentic Campaigns, a group that fundraises for Democratic political candidates.

    • An appeals court has already ruled that Merchan can remain on the case, saying his daughter’s work does not represent a conflict of interest.

    • Bragg has charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records stemming from his 2016 payment of $130,000 to Daniels to cover up an alleged extramarital affair.

    • On Monday, a second appeals court judge rejected Trump’s motion to delay the hush money trial while he seeks to have the venue changed to a courtroom outside of Manhattan.

    Why it matters:If the case begins on April 15, Trump will become the first former president in U.S. history to be tried on criminal charges in a courtroom.

    _________________

    Monday, April 8

    _________________

    A New York appeals court judge rejects former President Donald Trump’s emergency request to delay the April 15 start of his hush money trial while he seeks to have it moved to a different state and have a new judge appointed. Trump also announces that he is suing Judge Juan Merchan as he attempts to have the gag order placed on him removed. Here are the latest legal developments involving the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024.

    New York hush money

    Key players: New York Appeals Court Judge Justice Lizbeth González, Judge Juan Merchan, adult film star Stormy Daniels, former Playboy model Karen McDougal, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg

    • González rejected Trump’s emergency request to delay the start of his hush money trial, the Associated Press reported.

    • With just one week to go until the April 15 start date of the Manhattan trial on charges that Trump broke campaign finance and tax laws when he paid Daniels $130,000 in order to hide an extramarital affair from voters in the 2016 presidential election, Trump is also pursuing a number of new filings to keep the trial from going forward, CNN reported.

    • Trump is seeking to move the trial brought by Bragg from the Democratic stronghold of Manhattan to Staten Island, has filed a lawsuit against Merchan and is appealing the gag order he issued to keep him from commenting on witnesses, court staff and their families.

    • Daniels is expected to testify in the case about the sexual encounter she had with Trump, as is McDougal.

    • The hush money case is set to be the first criminal trial Trump will face before the 2024 presidential election.

    Why it matters: Trump is running out of time and options to delay the start of his hush money trial.

    Source link

  • Trump lawyers set to return court with another challenge to his impending criminal trial in New York

    Trump lawyers set to return court with another challenge to his impending criminal trial in New York

    Lawyers for former President Donald Trump were heading back to a New York appeals court on Wednesday, with their third legal challenge involving his impending criminal trial in three days.

    The court docket for the state Appellate Division shows Trump’s attorneys filed the challenge as a lawsuit invoking a provision of New York law known as Article 78. Article 78 challenges allow litigants, whether in ongoing litigation or otherwise, to seek relief from allegedly unlawful state or local government action.

    The documents were filed under seal. The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which is prosecuting the case, said it involved Judge Juan Merchan‘s refusal to step aside from presiding over the case. Attorneys for the former president have pointed to the judge’s daughter’s employment at a political firm that did work for President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign as evidence of his “significant conflicts.”

    The trial is scheduled to begin Monday.

    A hearing on the challenge was expected to take place later Wednesday.

    On Monday, Trump filed a separate Article 78 petition with the Appellate Division seeking to halt the trial by arguing he can’t get a fair trial in Manhattan. A judge denied that request Monday, and a separate judge denied his request to delay the trial on Tuesday while he appeals the gag order Merchan imposed on him as “unconstitutional.”

    This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

    Source link

  • the scramble before the storm

    the scramble before the storm

    You’re reading Guardian US’s free Trump on Trial newsletter. To get the latest court developments delivered to your inbox, sign up here.

    On the docket: the scramble before the storm

    With less than a week until Donald Trump becomes the first former US president to face a criminal trial, his attorneys are doing everything they can to delay it even longer – with very little to show for their efforts.

    On Tuesday, a New York appeals court judge rejected a last-minute lawsuit from Trump’s team that sought to pause the criminal hush-money case from proceeding while his attorneys try to overturn a gag order from presiding judge Juan Merchan.

    That ruling came just one day after a different appellate judge rejected a last-minute request from Trump’s lawyers to move his trial from Manhattan because of claims that he couldn’t get a fair jury pool in the city. Both judges took just hours to issue their orders, a sign of how thin were the arguments from Trump’s lawyers. Trump’s team also asked Merchan – for a second time – to recuse himself from the trial. Unsurprisingly, he once again declined.

    This follows a longstanding pattern of Trump freaking out as major threats approach, and his team responding with frenetic energy. As Guardian US reporter Hugo Lowell relays from sources close to Trump, he tends to start obsessing over his legal problems in the week before they come to pass.

    “Last summer, when Trump was charged by the Fulton county district attorney, Trump only started becoming anxious about his arraignment several days before he was due to travel to Atlanta and be booked at the Rice Street jail,” Lowell told me. “A day or two before he was due to fly to Georgia, the enormity of the moment finally hit him, and Trump railed against the case in frustration.”

    As Trump’s team throws everything it can at the wall, Trump has continued to tirade against Merchan – while pushing the bounds of the judge’s gag order.

    “Crooked Judge Juan Merchan is not allowing me to talk, is taking away my First Amendment Rights, he’s got me GAGGED, because he doesn’t want the FACTS behind the Gag to come out,” he posted on his social media site Truth Social. “If this Partisan Hack wants to put me in the ‘clink’ for speaking the open and obvious TRUTH, I will gladly become a Modern Day Nelson Mandela – It will be my GREAT HONOR.”

    Merchan, meanwhile, has continued to move things along. On Monday, he issued guidance for how the jury will be selected for the trial and released a 42-question form for prospective jurors. They won’t be asked how they feel about Trump – but can be asked about their media habits, whether they’ve ever attended rallies for or opposing Trump, and their political donations. Merchan also made clear that he’s not looking for any more delays, writing that he won’t conduct individual interviews with prospective jurors who claim they’re unable to serve because the step would be “unnecessary, time-consuming, and of no benefit”.

    Trump’s legal team has been open about its strategy to delay his multiple trials, with the hopes that they can push them past the November election. That strategy has paid huge dividends in other cases. The US supreme court’s decision to give hearing to his claims that presidential immunity means he can’t be charged for his attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss created a significant delay in that case. Trump’s team’s attempts to remove Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis have had a similar effect in Georgia, and Trump-appointed judge Aileen Cannon has seemed more than happy to play along with their delay tactics in his criminal classified documents case in Florida.

    But while Trump’s lawyers managed to achieve a delay of a few weeks in his New York hush-money trial (which was originally supposed to begin on 25 March), it appears they’ve run out of options to keep him out of criminal court.

    A programming note: As the trial begins next week, we’ll be sending you more regular coverage of the proceedings, starting with a step-back look at what it all means next Monday. Victoria Bekiempis will be at the court for us every day, and Lauren Aratani, Sam Levine, Hugo Lowell and the rest of our team will be helping you keep on top of all the major developments on a near-daily basis.

    Sidebar: Cannon fodder

    In a remarkable court filing, justice department special counsel Jack Smith showed clear frustration with Judge Aileen Cannon over her willingness to entertain what he called a “fundamentally flawed legal premise”. Trump’s attorneys have argued that the Presidential Records Act allowed him to keep classified documents after leaving office. Smith wrote that if Cannon allowed Trump to cite that interpretation of the law his defense, he would appeal to a higher court.

    “That legal premise is wrong, and a jury instruction … that reflects that premise would distort the trial,” he wrote.

    Cannon, a Trump appointee who has repeatedly entertained the most brazen defenses from Trump’s legal team and seemingly played along with their delay strategy, responded with fury on Thursday.

    She issued an order that rejected Trump’s motion to toss out the case based on his team’s misrepresentation of the Presidential Records Act. But she refused to go along with Smith’s demand that she bar Trump’s team from using it as a defense when the case goes to trial, calling it “unprecedented and unjust”.

    Briefs

    • Fulton county prosecutors asked a Georgia appeals court on Monday to reject Trump’s request to overturn Judge Scott McAfee’s decision to allow Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis to continue prosecuting Trump’s case. If the appeals court reverses McAfee and removes Willis, Trump’s Georgia election interference case would be all but dead.

    • McAfee rejected a request from Trump and his co-defendants that he toss out the case on first amendment grounds, writing: “Even core political speech addressing matters of public concern is not impenetrable from prosecution if allegedly used to further criminal activity.” Attorneys for Trump and his co-defendants filed a motion to appeal the order on Monday.

    • As of Tuesday, Trump’s social media company lost one-third of its value on the stock market in a week as an initial surge in trading withered, dropping the value of Trump’s personal stake in the company to under $3bn, from a peak of $6bn.

    • Fifteen prominent historians filed an amicus brief with the US supreme court ahead of its 25 April oral arguments countering Trump’s claim that he is immune to criminal prosecution for acts committed as president, arguing that “no plausible historical case supports” the claim.

    Judge Cannon set a 12 April hearing for arguments from Trump’s two Florida trial co-defendants, valet Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira, that seek to dismiss the obstruction of justice charges against them.

    What’s next

    12 April Cannon’s hearing with attorneys for Nauta and Oliveira in Trump’s classified documents case.

    15 April Trump’s New York hush-money criminal trial begins with jury selection.

    25 April The US supreme court will hear oral arguments for Trump’s claim that presidential immunity means his DC criminal trial should be dismissed.

    Have any questions about Trump’s trials? Please send them our way at: trumpontrial@theguardian.com.

    Source link

  • Fani Willis fights disqualification appeal in Trump’s Georgia case

    Fani Willis fights disqualification appeal in Trump’s Georgia case

    Remember the Fani Willis disqualification saga? It’s not over yet.

    Donald Trump and his co-defendants in Georgia are appealing Judge Scott McAfee’s order that let the Fulton County district attorney stay on the case. If they’re successful on appeal, then that would throw the entire case into question.

    But Willis is fighting the defense quest to overturn McAfee’s order. The judge said last month that Willis and her office could stay on the case if special prosecutor Nathan Wade, with whom Willis had a romantic relationship, stepped down. Wade did so.

    Arguing that there was “no error” in McAfee’s ruling, Willis’ office wrote Monday to the state appeals court that the defense complaint “merely reflects the applicants’ dissatisfaction with the trial court’s proper application of well-established law to the facts.” The DA therefore told the appeals court that it doesn’t even need to take up the appeal at all.

    McAfee found that there was no actual conflict of interest stemming from the relationship and that Willis hadn’t committed “forensic misconduct” in a speech she gave outside court. The judge nonetheless ruled that the appearance of impropriety required Willis or Wade to step down, which effectively kicked Wade off the case but let Willis’ office continue prosecuting it. The defense had argued that Willis gained an improper stake in the case by hiring Wade.

    The state appeals court doesn’t have to take the pretrial appeal, and we may not know until next month whether it will. If Willis and her office are kicked off the case, then it would have to go to a different office, which could imperil the multi-defendant election racketeering prosecution.

    The Georgia case doesn’t have a trial date as it is, while Trump is set to face his first criminal trial next week in his other state case, in New York. A difference between those two cases and Trump’s two federal criminal cases is that he can’t pardon himself in the state cases or order them dropped if he becomes president again. But if the Georgia defendants succeed in their disqualification appeal, then there may never be a trial in that one anyway.

    Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including news from the Supreme Court, the Donald Trump cases and more.

    This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

    Source link

  • Trump motion to delay hush money trial rejected by second appeals court judge in two days

    Trump motion to delay hush money trial rejected by second appeals court judge in two days

    For the second time in two days, an appeals court judge rejects a motion by former President Donald Trump that would have delayed the April 15 start of his hush money trial. New York Associate Justice Cynthia Kern declines Trump’s motion, which argued that the case should be postponed while he appeals Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order preventing Trump from commenting on witnesses, court staff and their families during the trial. Here are the latest legal developments involving the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024.

    New York hush money

    Appeals court judge rejects Trump bid to delay trial over gag order challenge

    Key players: New York Associate Justice Cynthia Kern, Judge Juan Merchan, Merchan’s daughter Loren Merchan, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, adult film star Stormy Daniels

    • Only minutes after hearing arguments from Trump’s lawyers on a motion to delay the start of the trial until after they could appeal Merchan’s expanded gag order, Kern denied the motion, CNN reported.

    • Although Trump is appealing Kern’s decision with the full appeals court, that will not delay the Monday start of the hush money trial, meaning that Trump will still be bound by Merchan’s gag order until at least April 29, when the appeals court has requested written arguments on the matter.

    • Merchan expanded his original gag order on Trump after the former president repeatedly attacked his daughter, who served as president for Authentic Campaigns, a group that fundraises for Democratic political candidates.

    • An appeals court has already ruled that Merchan can remain on the case, saying his daughter’s work does not represent a conflict of interest.

    • Bragg has charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records stemming from his 2016 payment of $130,000 to Daniels to cover up an alleged extramarital affair.

    • On Monday, a second appeals court judge rejected Trump’s motion to delay the hush money trial while he seeks to have the venue changed to a courtroom outside of Manhattan.

    Why it matters:If the case begins on April 15, Trump will become the first former president in U.S. history to be tried on criminal charges in a courtroom.

    Recommended reading

    _________________

    Monday, April 8

    _________________

    A New York appeals court judge rejects former President Donald Trump’s emergency request to delay the April 15 start of his hush money trial while he seeks to have it moved to a different state and have a new judge appointed. Trump also announces that he is suing Judge Juan Merchan as he attempts to have the gag order placed on him removed. Here are the latest legal developments involving the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024.

    New York hush money

    Key players: New York Appeals Court Judge Justice Lizbeth González, Judge Juan Merchan, adult film star Stormy Daniels, former Playboy model Karen McDougal, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg

    • González rejected Trump’s emergency request to delay the start of his hush money trial, the Associated Press reported.

    • With just one week to go until the April 15 start date of the Manhattan trial on charges that Trump broke campaign finance and tax laws when he paid Daniels $130,000 in order to hide an extramarital affair from voters in the 2016 presidential election, Trump is also pursuing a number of new filings to keep the trial from going forward, CNN reported.

    • Trump is seeking to move the trial brought by Bragg from the Democratic stronghold of Manhattan to Staten Island, has filed a lawsuit against Merchan and is appealing the gag order he issued to keep him from commenting on witnesses, court staff and their families.

    • Daniels is expected to testify in the case about the sexual encounter she had with Trump, as is McDougal.

    • The hush money case is set to be the first criminal trial Trump will face before the 2024 presidential election.

    Why it matters: Trump is running out of time and options to delay the start of his hush money trial.

    Source link

  • Appeals court judge denies Trump’s bid to delay next week’s hush money trial

    Appeals court judge denies Trump’s bid to delay next week’s hush money trial

    A state appeals court judge Monday denied Donald Trump’s bid for an emergency delay of his impending criminal trial in New York.

    Justice Lizbeth González of the state Appellate Division issued the ruling after attorneys for the former president argued the trial needed to be halted because “an impartial jury cannot be selected right now based on prejudicial pretrial publicity.” González rejected the request in a one-line ruling late Monday afternoon with no explanation.

    Trump’s attorneys had filed the eleventh-hour motion in an attempt to delay a trial that centers on charges that Trump falsified business records related to hush money payments. The long-shot legal maneuver came exactly one week before the first criminal trial of a former president is scheduled to start.

    González’s ruling affects only Trump’s request for a delay, not his underlying change-of-venue motion. Trump’s attorneys are also fighting the partial gag order that Judge Juan Merchan handed down against him last month, which the appeals court is expected to hear Tuesday.

    Trump attorney Emil Bove argued at the hearing on the venue challenge Monday afternoon that the gag order is unconstitutional and that jury selection can’t proceed in a fair manner because of all the publicity surrounding the case.

    Steven Wu of the district attorney’s office countered that the publicity isn’t confined to Manhattan, arguing it’s worldwide, in part because of Trump’s frequent commentary about the case. He suggested Trump was “trying to have it both ways” by complaining about the publicity while stoking it.

    Trump’s attorneys filed the challenge as a lawsuit invoking a provision of New York law known as Article 78. An Article 78 challenge allows litigants, whether in ongoing litigation or otherwise, to seek relief from allegedly unlawful state or local government action.

    Trump tried a similar move before the same appeals court last year, when he challenged a partial gag order issued by Judge Arthur Engoron in the civil fraud case brought against him and his company by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

    The appeals court refused Trump’s request to stay the case while he appealed the order, and it eventually ruled against him. In the ruling, it chided his attorneys for having brought the challenge as an Article 78 petition, calling it an “extraordinary remedy” that wasn’t warranted in that situation.

    In a statement Monday night, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung said, “President Trump and his legal team will continue fighting against this Biden Trial and all of the other Witch Hunts.”

    While Trump hasn’t formally asked Merchan for a change of venue, his lawyers contended in a court filing last month seeking to delay the trial because of pretrial publicity that New York County — Manhattan — is “overwhelmingly biased against President Trump.” The filing noted in part that the county voted “overwhelmingly” for other candidates in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

    The DA’s office responded in a filing that “given the sheer size of New York County, it is absurd for defendant to assert that it will be impossible or even impractical to find a dozen fair and impartial jurors, plus alternates, among more than a million people.”

    Trump has pleaded not guilty.

    This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

    Source link

  • Georgia prosecutors urge court to reject Trump attempt to disqualify Fani Willis

    Georgia prosecutors urge court to reject Trump attempt to disqualify Fani Willis

    Fulton county prosecutors asked the Georgia state court of appeals on Monday to reject Donald Trump’s request to consider his claim that the district attorney should be disqualified over a relationship with her deputy, arguing that the matter was correctly settled by the lower court judge.

    “The present application merely reflects the applicants’ dissatisfaction with the trial court’s proper application of well-established law to the facts,” prosecutors wrote in a 19-page filing.

    Related: Trump appeals ruling letting Fani Willis stay on election interference case

    Trump was charged alongside more than a dozen associates last year with racketeering over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. As part of their bid to dismiss the case, Trump and his co-defendants alleged the district attorney Fani Willis’s relationship meant she should be recused from the case.

    The effort to have Willis disqualified – which could have also resulted in the entire Fulton county district attorney’s office being disqualified – failed after the presiding judge decided, following days of evidentiary hearings, that Trump and his co-defendants did not prove a conflict of interest.

    The judge nonetheless ruled the relationship gave the appearance of a conflict, which needed to be addressed. For Willis to continue bringing the case, the judge ordered, her deputy Nathan Wade needed to resign from the district attorney’s office. Wade resigned later that evening.

    Trump and his co-defendants challenged the ruling last week, arguing to the Georgia state court of appeals that it should clarify the standard for forensic misconduct standard that would require Willis to step down and that the lower court judge should have found there was actual conflict of interest.

    The Georgia state court of appeals does not have to hear the case and prosecutors on Monday contended that Trump had failed to establish sufficient cause because he did not convincingly show his claims met several specific conditions.

    Broadly, an order from a lower court is deemed reviewable if the issue at hand is dispositive for the case, if the order appears wrongly decided on the facts and would adversely affect a defendant’s rights, or if it was a novel issue for which the appeals court should create a precedent.

    The filing from prosecutors argued Trump’s motion was deficient since the lower court found there was no evidence that the Willis-Wade relationship meant they had a “disqualifying personal interest” in bringing or continuing the Trump case, meaning there was also no due process violations.

    It also argued the Georgia state court of appeals has previously decided that in the absence of an “actual” conflict, as opposed to the appearance of one, a lower court could not be deemed as having made a clearly unreasonable or erroneous ruling by deciding not to disqualify a defense attorney.

    The filing added that even if there was some conflict, the issue had been resolved because the lower court allowed Willis to continue prosecuting the case as long as Wade resigned. “This court has sanctioned this same remedy as a cure for the potential appearance of impropriety,” prosecutors wrote.

    Source link

  • Trump legal team appeals gag order and venue one week before hush money trial is set to begin

    Trump legal team appeals gag order and venue one week before hush money trial is set to begin

    The legal team of former President Donald Trump has filed a notice of appeal in his Manhattan criminal case, court records show, one week before his trial is set to begin.

    The paperwork itself is not immediately available, but a source tells CNN that the two requests relate to the gag order that has been imposed on the former president, as well as the venue for the trial.

    The appeals court will hear arguments from Trump’s lawyers and Manhattan prosecutors later Monday afternoon, the court clerk’s office said. Trump is not expected to be present.

    Trump’s lawyers have previously contested the gag order and requested to change the location from Manhattan, which generally has a very Democratic population.

    Jury selection is set to begin on April 15.

    This story is breaking and will be updated.

    For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com

    Source link

  • Former Justice Stephen Breyer plans return to the bench as visiting judge on appeals court

    Former Justice Stephen Breyer plans return to the bench as visiting judge on appeals court

    Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is aiming to get back on the bench, this time as a visiting judge on a federal appeals court.

    Breyer, who retired from the high court in 2022, said on a podcast this week that he’s looking at a potential start date in the fall with the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

    “I’m a judge. If you take senior status, you remain a judge, and not only you remain a judge in terms of status, but probably next fall I will go over and sit with the First Circuit,” he said on the Thursday release of “Politics War Room” with journalist Al Hunt and Democratic strategist James Carville. “So I’m still an active judge.”

    In an email Friday, an official with the appeals court confirmed Breyer’s plans.

    “Justice Breyer has expressed interest in sitting with the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the Court is thrilled to have him,” Circuit Executive Susan Goldberg said. “Precise dates have not been set yet.”

    The court encompasses the districts of Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico.

    Breyer, 85, would not be the first former justice to hear cases after leaving the Supreme Court.

    David Souter, who retired from the high court in 2009, has served as a visiting judge on the First Circuit, while the late Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired in 2006, was a visiting judge with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

    Breyer, a liberal justice, served more than 27 years on the high court. He was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

    After retiring, President Joe Biden nominated Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to succeed him. Breyer recently authored a new book titled, “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism.”

    In a March interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Breyer talked about one of the biggest rulings by the Supreme Court, which came at the end of his tenure as a justice. He called the leak of the court’s draft decision in the Dobbs abortion case “unfortunate,” while adding that that he would be “amazed” if the source of the leak was one of the justices.

    Breyer also said in the interview that it was possible Dobbs could be overturned. He was one of the three justices who dissented in the Dobbs case, which led to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

    This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

    Source link

  • Trump, co-defendants ask appeals court to consider booting DA Fani Willis from Georgia case

    Trump, co-defendants ask appeals court to consider booting DA Fani Willis from Georgia case

    Lawyers for former President Donald Trump and eight of his co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case on Friday asked a state appeals court to allow them to challenge a recent ruling that didn’t disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting the case.

    “The Georgia Court of Appeals should grant the application and accept the interlocutory appeal for consideration on the merits,” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, told NBC News in a statement Friday.

    Willis’ office declined NBC News’ request for comment.

    The application comes after Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee gave Trump and the others permission to seek a review from the Georgia Court of Appeals of McAfee’s decision not to disqualify Willis and her office and dismiss the charges in the sprawling racketeering case.

    In a motion originally filed by Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, and later adopted by Trump and others, Willis is accused of financially benefitting from a personal relationship she had with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor she’d appointed to the case. The motion alleged Willis and Wade took vacations together while working on the case.

    Willis and Wade denied any wrongdoing. They acknowledged they’d been in a relationship, but they maintained that it began after his appointment as special prosecutor and that Willis did not benefit financially.

    In a decision earlier this month, McAfee found no conflict of interest but said because of an “appearance of impropriety,” either Willis and her office would have to step aside, or Wade.

    Wade resigned shortly after McAfee’s ruling — but, Sadow noted, the defense wanted the order to go further.

    “Defendants argues in the trial court that the indictment should have been dismissed and, at a minimum, DA Willis and her office should have been disqualified from prosecuting the case,” Sadow’s statement said.

    Trump has pleaded not guilty in the case, which alleges he conspired with others to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.

    With the request officially filed, the appeals court has 45 days to decide whether to take up the case. McAfee has said he will not halt proceedings in the Georgia case as the disqualification matter makes its way through the appeals court.

    This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

    Source link

  • Divided appeals court extends block on Texas immigration law

    Divided appeals court extends block on Texas immigration law

    A federal appeals court early on Wednesday extended its hold on a new Texas immigration law, meaning the measure cannot go into effect while litigation continues.

    A three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 vote said in a decision issued overnight that the statute, known as Senate Bill 4, should remain blocked. The same court temporarily froze the law March 19, just hours after the Supreme Court said it could go into effect.

    “For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has held that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission, and removal of noncitizens—is exclusively a federal power,” Judge Priscilla Richman wrote for the majority.

    She cited in part a 2012 Supreme Court ruling that invalided a similar law in Arizona.

    Whatever the state’s criticisms about the federal government’s “actions and inactions” on immigration, it is the president’s role “to decide whether, and if so, how to pursue noncitizens illegally present in the United States,” Richman wrote.

    The state law would allow police to arrest migrants suspected of illegally crossing the border from Mexico and impose criminal penalties. It would also empower state judges to order people to be deported to Mexico.

    The dispute is the latest clash between the Biden administration and Texas over immigration enforcement on the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Texas could potentially now ask the Supreme Court to allow the law to go into effect. In the meantime, the appeals court holds another hearing on April 3.

    Richman and Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez voted to block the law. Judge Andrew Oldham voted for it to go into effect.

    Richman and Oldham are both Republican appointees, while Ramirez was appointed by President Joe Biden.

    It was the same lineup of judges that issued the temporary block.

    Oldham wrote a lengthy dissenting opinion saying the law should not be blocked in full because of hypothetical concerns about how it would be enforced.

    Because of the federal government’s struggles to control immigration, “the state is forever helpless” to respond if it cannot legislate on the issue, he said.

    “Texas can do nothing because Congress apparently did everything, yet federal non-enforcement means Congress’s everything is nothing,” Oldham wrote.

    A federal judge blocked the law after the Biden administration sued, but the appeals court initially said in a brief order that it could go into effect March 10 if the Supreme Court declined to intervene. In the meantime, the appeals court delayed a decision on whether to impose a more permanent block during Texas’ appeal.

    The Supreme Court initially put the law on hold while it determined what steps to take, but on March 19 said it would allow the measure to go into effect, with the understanding that the appeals court would act quickly on the underlying case.

    The Supreme Court’s order prompted alarm among immigrant rights activists amid confusion on the ground about whether the law could be enforced immediately.

    The appeals court appeared to get the message and immediately imposed the new hold on the law while it considered Texas’ appeal of the district court injunction.

    This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

    Source link

  • US court keeps Texas border security law on hold in win for Biden

    US court keeps Texas border security law on hold in win for Biden

    By Daniel Wiessner

    (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday kept on hold a Republican-backed Texas law that would let state authorities arrest and prosecute people suspected of illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border – a statute that President Joe Biden’s administration has argued intrudes on the authority of the federal government.

    A panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling denied a request by Texas to let the law take effect while the state’s appeal of a judge’s ruling blocking it plays out at the appellate court.

    (Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Edsiting by Andrew Heavens)

    Source link

  • Court lowers bond in Trump fraud judgment appeal to $175 million

    Court lowers bond in Trump fraud judgment appeal to $175 million

    A New York appeals court on Monday lowers the bond amount that former President Donald Trump must pay as he appeals the $464 million judgment in his civil fraud trial, saying he can put up just $175 million within 10 days. The 11th hour deal temporarily prevents New York Attorney General Letitia James from moving to seize Trump’s assets. In Trump’s hush money trial, Judge Juan Merchan says jury selection can begin on April 15. Here are the latest legal developments involving the presumptive Republican presidential nominee for 2024.

    New York financial fraud

    Appeals court rules in favor of Trump hours before bond deadline

    Key players: Trump, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Judge Arthur Engoron

    • On Monday, a New York appeals court lowered the bond amount Trump and his co-defendants must pay in order to appeal Engoron’s $464 million judgment in his civil fraud trail to just $175 million, Semafor reported.

    • The appeals court also gave Trump 10 days to pay that sum.

    • Speaking to reporters outside a hearing in his criminal hush money case in Manhattan, Trump said he would do so “very quickly.”

    • “I greatly respect the decision of the appellate division,” he said. “And I’ll post either $175 million in cash or bonds or security or whatever is necessary very quickly within the 10 days.”

    • James had begun clearing the way to seize some of Trump’s assets in order to secure the full bond amount.

    Why it matters: Trump’s lawyers had argued that the original bond amount, which included interest, was “excessive.” They also told the court that 30 lenders had refused to give them a loan to cover the $464 million bond. This ruling buys Trump more time, and could keep James from freezing his bank accounts and seizing his assets.

    Hush money case

    Judge sets April 15 start date for Trump’s hush money trial

    Key players: Judge Juan Merchan, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, adult film actress Stormy Daniels, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen

    • With Trump looking on in court on Monday, Merchan ruled that the hush money trial could begin jury selection on April 15, The Daily Beast reported.

    • The trial had originally been scheduled to begin on March 25, but Merchan delayed it until April 15 after federal prosecutors submitted new evidence stemming from their investigation of Trump’s ties to Russia during the 2016 election.

    • Merchan ruled Monday that the newly disclosed documents did not have any bearing on the hush money case, which will decide whether Trump broke New York campaign finance and tax laws when he paid Daniels $130,000 in 2016 to hide an alleged extramarital affair.

    • Trump’s lawyers had sought to have the case dismissed or to have it postponed so that they could have more time to review the newly disclosed documents.

    • “The defendant has been given a reasonable amount of time to prepare,” Merchan said.

    Why it matters: Trump’s lawyers have skillfully delayed all of the criminal trials facing the former president. But Monday’s ruling could mean that streak could be coming to an end.

    Recommended reading

    Source link