Court Opinion

ID: 9966032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 20:09:57.90957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:49.424916
License: Public Domain

People v Trump
               2024 NY Slip Op 31548(U)
                     April 30, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
       Docket Number: Index No. SMZ 71762-24
                 Judge: Juan M. Merchan
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
        SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORI<
        COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 59

                                                                                            DECISION and ORDER
            THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORI<
                                                                                                    People's Motion for
                                     - against-                                                         Contempt

            DONALD J. TRUMP                                                                  SMZ 71762-24 and SMZ
                                                                           Defendant               71764-24

        JUAN M. MERCHAN, A.J.S.C.:

                                                            BACKGROUND
                   Defendant is charged with 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree in
        violation of Penal Law § 175.10. The charges arise from allegations that Defendant attempted to
        conceal an illegal scheme to influence the 2016 presidential election. Specifically, the People claim
        that Defendant directed an attorney who worked for his company to pay $130,000 to an adult film
        actress shortly before the election to prevent her from publicizing an alleged sexual encounter with
        Defendant. It is further aileged that Defendant thereafter reimbursed the attorney for the payments
        through a series of checks and caused business records associated with the repayments to be falsified
        to conceal his criminal conduct. Trial on this matter commenced on April 15, 2024.
                   On February 22, 2024, the People filed a motion for an order restricting extrajudicial
        statements by Defendant. On March 26, 2024, this Court granted the People's motion and issued
        an Order (hereinafter the "Order"). On March 28, 2024, the People filed a pre-motion letter seeking
        clarification or confirmation of the March 26 Order as to whether it proscribes extrajudicial speech
        against family members of the Court, the District Attorney, and of all other individuals mentioned
        in the Order. On April 1,.2024, this Court issued an Order expanding the restrictions contained in
        the March 26, 2024, Order (hereinafter the "Expanded Order"). Defendant sought an emergency
        stay of the Expanded Order from the Appellate Division, First Department, which was denied on
        April 9, 2024. 1
                   On April 15, 2024, the People moved by order to show cause, for this Court to find
        Defendant in criminal contempt for allegedly willfully violating the Expanded Order on three

        1
            The first of the ten alleged violations occurred the following day on April 10, 2024.

[* 1]
        separate occasions. Defendant was served with the signed order to show cause that same day in
        court. On April 18, 2024 the People again moved by order to show cause for this Court to find
        Defendant in criminai contempt for allegedly willfully violating the Expanded Order on seven
        additional occasions. Defendant was served with the second signed order to show cause in court
        that same day and he filed answering papers on or about April 19, 2024. A hearing was conducted
        on April 23, 2024.
           The People seek a $1,000 fine for each of the alleged violations, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 751.
        The People also ask that this Court order the Defendant to remove the eight offending posts from
        Defendant's Truth Social account and the two offending posts from his campaign website. Lastly,
        the People request that this Court "warn the defendant that this conduct will not be tolerated and
        remind him that incarceration is an option should it be necessary." (Trial tr at 958-959).
           The language of the Expanded Order that is pertinent to the instant motions is:

                         ORDERED, that the Court's Order of March 26, 2024, is amended
                         as indicated below. Defendant is directed to refrain from:
                   a.    Making or directing others to make public statements about known or
                         reasonably       foreseeable   witnesses   concerrung   their   potential
                         participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding;
                    b. Making or directing others to make public statements about (1) counsel
                         in the case other than the District Attorney, (2) members of the Court's
                         staff and the District Attorney's staff, or (3) the family members of any
                         counsel, staff member, the Court or the District Attorney, if those
                         statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to
                         cause others to materially interfere with, counsel's or staff s work in
                         this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is likely
                         to result; and
                    c.   Making or directing others to make public statements about any
                         prospective juror o.r any juror in this criminal proceeding.

                                                              2

[* 2]
                                                     FINDINGS OF FACT

                This Court has considered the respective arguments of both parties, the exhibits introduced
        into evidence at the hearing and all submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the motion
        for contempt.
                The People claim that the Defendant has violated the Expanded Order ten times. T he
        alleged violations were introduced into evidence at the hearing as People's 1-102 as follows:

            •   Exhibit 1: A post on Truth Social on April 10, at 10:07am.

            •   Exhibit 2: A post on Truth Social on April 10 at 10:48am.

            •   Exhibit 3: A post on Truth Social on April 13 at 12:56pm.

            •   Exhibit 4: A post on Truth Social on April 15 at 9:12am.

            •   Exhibit 5: A post on Truth Social on April 15 at 10:26am.

            •   Exhibit 6: A post on Defend.ant's campaign website on April 15.

            •   Exhibit 7: A post on Truth Social on April 16 at 1:50pm.

            •   Exhibit 8: A post on Defendant's campaign website on April 16.

            •   Exhibit 9: A post on Truth Social on April 16 at 7:09pm.

            •   Exhibit 10: A post on Truth Social on April 17 at 5:46pm.

            The ten posts consist of posts made by the Defendant (Exhibits 2, 3 and 103), a "repost" of
        material previously posted by another source on another website or social media account which also
        contains Defendant's words (Exhibit 1), and "reposts" of material previously posted by another
        source on another website or social media account which do not contain commentary by the
        Defendant (Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9).
            Defendant does not dispute that he either posted or reposted all 10 of the posts in question.
        Rather, he advances several defenses to support his claim that his actions do not constitute a willful
        violation of the Expanded Order and that he should therefore not be found to be in criminal
        contempt. He argues, for example, that reposting another's post does not violate the Expanded
        Order because the words are not his own but those of someone else; that he believed reposting was

        2
          The People also introduced into evidence Exhibits 11-15 which were not offered as violations of the Expanded
        Order but rather, to advance the People's argument that Defendant's conduct was willful.
        3
          Exhibit 10 is a post containing a quote which Defendant attributes to Jesse Watters . However, the words
        contained within the quotation marks misstate what Jesse Watters actually said . Thus, in this Court's view, this
        post constitutes the words of Defendant himself.

                                                                 3

[* 3]
        permissible because the People and the Court did not move to enforce the Expanded Order after
        the first repost; and that he did not willfully violate the Expanded Order because the posts constitute
        protected political speech made in response to attacks by Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels.4

                                                   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

                The Judiciary Law authorizes a court to hold a party in criminal contempt for "willful
        disobedience of a court's lawful mandate." People's Memorandum of Law pg 4 quoting Town of
        Riverhead v. T.S. Haulets, Inc. 68 A.D.3d 1103 [2d Dept 2009). This is "to protect the dignity of the

        judicial system and to compel respect for its mandates," Matter of McCormick, 59 NY2d 574 [1983]
        and "to punish the contemnor for disobeying a court order." Rush v. Save My Home Co,p., 145 AD3d
        930 [2d D ept 2016]. Criminal contempt requires a showing of willfulness on the part of the
        contemnor, Matter ofMcCormick, 59 NY2d at 574, which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
        Rush 145 AD3d at 114. Thus, for a court to make a finding of criminal contempt, the moving party

        must establish: (1) the existence of a lawful order expressing an unequivocal mandate, and (2) a
        violation of the order (3) that is made with knowledge and is willful. "[A] party may not challenge a
        [court's] order by violating it." People's Memorandum of Law pg. 6 quoting United States v. Cutle1;
        58 F.3d 825,832 [2d Cir 1995). Indeed, a party may be held in contempt for violating an order later
        found to be unlawful. See Schmude v. Sheahan, 420 F.3d 645 [7th Cir 2005). An adjudication of the
        contempt occurs at "a plenary hearing with due process of law including notice, written charges,
        assistance of counsel, compulsory process for production of evidence and an opportunity of the
        accused to confront witnesses against him." 22 NYCRR 604.2(6). A plenary hearing as required by
        law was conducted on April 23, 2024.

                                                               DECISION

                This Court rejects Defendant's arguments and finds that the People have established the
        elements of criminal contempt beyond a reasonable doubt as to Exhibits 2-10. This Court's
        Expanded Order is lawful and unambiguous. Defendant violated the Order by making social media

        4
         At the hearing, the Court gave defense counsel numerous opportunities to cite actual instances where the
        Defendant's posts were made in response to perceived attacks by protected witnesses. Aside from referencing a
        Tweet in their responsive papers relating to Exhibit 1, counsel was unable to direct the Court's attention to any
        other specific "attacks" by the protected witnesses which immediately preceded Defendant' s posts. Defendant
        offered no exhibits at the hearing.

                                                                4

[* 4]
        posts about known witnesses pertaining to their participation in this criminal proceeding and by
        making public statements about jurors in t:lus criminal proceeding.
                Addressing first what has been referred to as "reposts," Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, this
        Court finds that a repost, whether with or without commentary by the Defendant, is in fact a
        statement of the Defendant. The issue of "reposting" appears to be a question of first impression.
        Lacking legal authority to guide its decision, dus Court must, as defense counsel stated at the hearing,
        rely on common sense.
                Both the Truth Sociai account and the official campaign website, exclusively represent the
        opinions and views of the Defendant, and neither is an open forum for others to post their own
        content. Defendant curated the posts at issue and then took the necessary steps to publish the posts
        on his Truth Social accow1t and on his campaign website. In doing so, he endorsed the posts with
        one purpose in mind - to maximize viewership and to communicate his stamp of approval. Indeed,
        Defendant has boasted about the reach of his Truth Social platform when describing its value -
        "More importantly, [Truth Social] is the primary way I get the word out and, for better or worse,
        people want to hear what I have to say, perhaps, according to experts, more than anyone in the world
        . . . on Truth I have 7,00,000 followers . .. " Exhibit 11 pg 1.    "[W]hen I put out a statement it is
        SPREAD all over the place, fast and furious. EVERYBODY SEEMS TO GET WHATEVER I
        HAVE TO SAY, A D QUICKLY. .. If it didn't work, or properly get the word out, I wouldn't use
        it - But it does work, and work really well[.]" Exhibit 11 pg 2.          Thus, there can be no doubt
        whatsoever, that Defendant's intent and purpose when reposting, is to communicate to his audience
        that he endorses and adopts the posted statement as his own.
                It is counterintuitive and indeed absurd, to read the Expanded Order to not proscribe
        statements that Defendant intentionally selected and published to maximize exposure. This is not to
        say that a repost will alwqys be deemed a statement of the reposter, as context is directly
        relevant. However, here, under the unique facts and circumstances of tl-iis case, the only credible
        finding is that the reposts constitute statements of the Defendant.
                Turning next to Defendant's post in which he purports to quote Jesse Watters. E xhibit 10.
        This is not a repost but rather the Defendant's own words. Mr. Watters uttered a statement which
        Defendant altered, placed in quotes, attributed to Mr. Watters and posted. The purpose being to call
        into question the legitimacy of the jury selection process in this case. This constitutes a clear violation
        of the Expanded Order and requires no further analysis.

                                                             5

[* 5]
                Defendant next argues that the statements contained in the exhibits were all made in
        response to political attacks. While the Expanded Order does permit Defendant to respond to
        political attacks, merely characterizing every one of Defendant's postings as a response to a "political
        attack" does not make them so. Although Defendant did not produce any exhibits at the hearing,
        he did refer to two postings contained in his opposition papers. They include a post by Michael
        Cohen on April 9, 2024, wherein he comments on those who support Defendant for the presidency,
        and a second post by Michael Cohen on April 10, 2024, referencing Michael Avenatti's likelihood of
        receiving a pardon from Donald Trump. While it remains unclear whether Exhibit 1 is, in fact, a
        response to these two posts, the tenuous correlation is sufficient to give this Court pause as to
        whether the People have met their burden as to this Exhibit. However, that cannot be said as to the
        remaining Exhibits 2 through 9 which attack the credibility of arguably two of the more high-profile
        witnesses in this case. To allow such attacks upon protected witnesses with blanket assertions that
        they are all responses to "political attacks" would be an exception that swallowed the rule. The
        Expanded Order does not contain such an exception.
                At the same time, this Court is keenly aware of, and protective of, Defendant's First
        Amendment rights, particularly given his candidacy for the office of President of the United States.
        It is critically important that Defendant's legitimate free speech rights not be curtailed, that he be
        able to fully campaign for the office which he seeks and that he be able to respond and defend
        himself against political attacks. For that reason, this Court exercised discretion when it crafted the
        Expanded Order and delayed issuing it until the eve of trial. The Order is narrowly tailored to
        prevent risk to the fair administration of justice and it clearly and unambiguously identifies the limited
        way in which Defendant's speech is restricted. It is of utmost importance to this Court that the
        Expanded Order not be used as a sword instead of a shield by potential witnesses. Consideration
        of such usage will be weighed by this Court when ruling on the willfulness of any future claims of
        alleged violations of the Expanded Order as well as when determining appropriate punishment, if
        any. In fact, the Court may very well consider the propriety of continuing the limitation on extra
        judicial speech as it relates to certain individuals. As this Court observed in the Expanded Order,
        "[i]t remains this Court's fundamental responsibility to protect the integrity of the criminal process
        and to control disruptive influences in the courtroom." Expanded Order pg. 3; See Sheppard v.
        Maxwell, 384 US 333 [1966]. The underlying purpose of the restriction on extrajudicial statements
        is to protect the integrity of these proceedings by shielding those fearful of reprisal by the Defendant
        so that they may take part in these proceedings without concern. However, if a protected party turns

                                                            6

[* 6]
        that underlying purpose on its head, it becomes apparent that the protected party likely does not
        need to be protected by the Expanded Order.
                T he Court is cognizant that Defendant has made, through the various motions he has filed
        during the pendency of this case, numerous references to the cc,mmentary of Michael Cohen and
        Stormy Daniels and as indicated above, will consider such in any future filings. Nonetheless, the
        Court finds that it is not yet necessary to modify the terms of the Expanded Order to exclude any
        of the currently protected parties.
               The Court finds Defendant in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying a lawful mandate
        of this Court in violation of.Judiciary Law Section 750(3) on nine separate occas10ns.

                                              PUNISHMENT AND ORDER
                Criminal contempt is punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000, by jail not exceeding 30 days
        or by both in the discretion of the court, for each violation of a court order. Judiciary Law § 751(1).
        The Judiciary Law permits tlus punishment "to protect the dignity of the judicial system and to
        compel respect for its mandates," Matter of McCormick, 59 NY2d 574 [1983] and "to punish the
        contemnor for disobeying a court order." Rush v. Save My Home Corp., 145 AD3d 930 [2d Dept 2016].
        However, the Judiciary Law does not vest the Court with authority to craft an appropriate
        punishment when a $1,000 fine will not achieve the intended purpose. While $1,000 may suffice in
        most instances to protect the dignity of the judicial sys tem, to compel respect for its mandates and
        to punish the offender for disobeying a court order, it unfortunately will not achieve the desired
        result in those instances where the contemnor can easily afford such a fine. In those circumstances,
        it would be preferable if the Court could impose a fine more commensurate with the wealth of the
        contemnor. In some cases that might be a $2,500 fine, in other cases it might be a fine of $150,000.
        Because this Court is not cloaked with such discretion, it must therefore consider whether in some
        instances, jail may be a necessary punishment.

                THEREFORE, Defendant is hereby warned that the Court will not tolerate continued
        ,.villful violations of its lawful orders and that if necessary and appropriate under the circumstances,
        it will impose an incarceratory punishment; and it is hereby

                ORDERED, that Defendant pay a $1,000 fine for each of the nine violations of this Court's
        lawful order by the close of business on Friday, May 3, 2024; and it is further

                                                           7

[* 7]
               ORDERED that Defendant remove the seven offending posts from Defendant's Truth
        Social account and the two offending posts from his campaign website by 2:15pm Tuesday, April
        30, 2024.

               The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

        Dated: April 30, 2024
               New York, New York

              APR aou                                       Acting Justice of the Supreme Court

                                                      8

[* 8]