Donald J. Trump was fined another $1,000 for again violating his gag order and threatened with jail time, as his trial entered its third week of testimony. Stormy Daniels, the porn star at the center of it, could soon take the stand.
is jail time not always on the table when you repeatedly ignore orders from a judge in their own courtroom?
Yes. That’s how NY law on this works.
OK, so if jail is always on the table, and this is the TENTH time he’s been found in contempt, how would it have been “jumping the gun” to jail him after say the 8th time? Or how about the third time? Would I get away with three contempt findings and no jail time under the same judge?
There was one hearing covering several instances. All those get bundled together as a set of $1000 fines each. There was then a second hearing (which is what is being cited in OP), which covered more instances, but they all happened before the first hearing. So it’s a second set of $1000 fines. If there’s contempt hearing for something that happened after the first hearing, then it’s jail time.
Which is how the system should work for anyone, excepting the size of the fine compared to networth.
I feel really doubtful that it would work that way for me, (or for any rando off the street) but you seem very certain, so that’s probably as far as we can expect this conversation to go. Thanks for the discussion though. :)
Well, it would work for you, because NY law is very specific about how this works.
I’ve been avoiding requesting a citation up to now, but can you quote me the bit that says any random person can be fined for this many infractions (specifically willfully failing to follow directives from the judge in a way that would be considered contempt) without expecting jail for it? I’ve got no problem admitting I’m wrong, but as of yet I don’t feel convinced that I am.
Edit - specifically the part which stipulates that this should result in one hearing, not “several” -
There was one hearing covering several instances. All those get bundled together as a set of $1000 fines each.
The judge from that case considers if there should be criminal or civil penalties, and concludes that you can’t just hastily jump to criminal penalties:
Criminal contempt, on the other hand, involves vindication of an offense against public justice and is utilized to protect the dignity of the judicial system and to compel respect for its mandates ( King v Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476). Inasmuch as the objective is deterrence of disobedience of judicial mandates, the penalty imposed is punitive in nature ( State of New York v Unique Ideas, supra). Although the line between the two types of contempt may be difficult to draw in a given case, and the same act may be punishable as both a civil and a criminal contempt, the element which serves to elevate a contempt from civil to criminal is the level of willfulness with which the conduct is carried out (compare Judiciary Law, § 753, subd A, par 3 [civil contempt], with id., § 750, subd A, par 3 [criminal contempt]; see, e.g., Sentry Armored Courier Corp. v New York City Off-Track Betting Corp., 75 A.D.2d 344). It is clear, in the present case, that the record does not support a finding of the willfulness necessary to hold respondents, particularly the Commissioner of Health, in criminal contempt. Accordingly, our further discussion is limited to the elements of civil contempt.
And then proscribes a fine, with the amount to be split up among the petitioners. This being from 1983, I’m not sure what the fine amount was at the time, but there are several petitioners making up several infractions here.
Accordingly, petitioners’ motion to hold respondents Commissioner of Health, Beth Rifka, Inc., and Sally Gearhart in contempt is granted, and respondents are fined in the total amount of $4,000 for which they shall be deemed jointly and severally liable to be paid to petitioners as follows: $2,500 to be paid to petitioner Louise McCormick; $1,000 to be paid to petitioner Maria Bonsignore; $500 to be paid to petitioner Theresa Coppola.
Does that very old case (which seems a really odd basis for this seemingly minor point of law - and I’m skeptical this 1983 decision is weighing on this judges mind) also stipulate that someone should get only a single hearing for multiple infractions?
I still don’t see the logic anywhere showing “hey, we’ll let folks do this OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER but it would be jumping the gun to do more than slap his wrist until they’ve done it, say, twelve times.”
This just seems like an example of a judge being lenient in a specific case, and not especially relevant beyond that.
Really it doesn’t matter. He’ll do it again, and I’ll be shown correct when they fine him another nickel, or he’ll do it again, and I’ll be wrong, but he’ll actually be inconvenienced by his actions by a very short stint in jail so that will be OK, I guess.
Edit - with no snark intended, this is seeming less true, not more, as we continue.
OK, so if jail is always on the table, and this is the TENTH time he’s been found in contempt, how would it have been “jumping the gun” to jail him after say the 8th time? Or how about the third time? Would I get away with three contempt findings and no jail time under the same judge?
It’s not the tenth time after the first hearing.
There was one hearing covering several instances. All those get bundled together as a set of $1000 fines each. There was then a second hearing (which is what is being cited in OP), which covered more instances, but they all happened before the first hearing. So it’s a second set of $1000 fines. If there’s contempt hearing for something that happened after the first hearing, then it’s jail time.
Which is how the system should work for anyone, excepting the size of the fine compared to networth.
I feel really doubtful that it would work that way for me, (or for any rando off the street) but you seem very certain, so that’s probably as far as we can expect this conversation to go. Thanks for the discussion though. :)
Well, it would work for you, because NY law is very specific about how this works. There isn’t much wiggle room here.
I’ve been avoiding requesting a citation up to now, but can you quote me the bit that says any random person can be fined for this many infractions (specifically willfully failing to follow directives from the judge in a way that would be considered contempt) without expecting jail for it? I’ve got no problem admitting I’m wrong, but as of yet I don’t feel convinced that I am.
Edit - specifically the part which stipulates that this should result in one hearing, not “several” -
Judge Manchen’s April 30 order cites this case from 1983:
https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-mccormick-v-axelrod-6
The judge from that case considers if there should be criminal or civil penalties, and concludes that you can’t just hastily jump to criminal penalties:
And then proscribes a fine, with the amount to be split up among the petitioners. This being from 1983, I’m not sure what the fine amount was at the time, but there are several petitioners making up several infractions here.
Does that very old case (which seems a really odd basis for this seemingly minor point of law - and I’m skeptical this 1983 decision is weighing on this judges mind) also stipulate that someone should get only a single hearing for multiple infractions?
I still don’t see the logic anywhere showing “hey, we’ll let folks do this OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER but it would be jumping the gun to do more than slap his wrist until they’ve done it, say, twelve times.”
This just seems like an example of a judge being lenient in a specific case, and not especially relevant beyond that.
Really it doesn’t matter. He’ll do it again, and I’ll be shown correct when they fine him another nickel, or he’ll do it again, and I’ll be wrong, but he’ll actually be inconvenienced by his actions by a very short stint in jail so that will be OK, I guess.
Edit - with no snark intended, this is seeming less true, not more, as we continue.
Its the second time he’s been found in contempt. The first was on 9 counts. In the second the judge is now threatening jail time.