Prosecutors Push To Protect Jurors In Trump’s Quickly Unfolding Criminal Case


In the New York criminal case against former President Donald Trump slated to reach trial at the end of next month, prosecutors are seeking protective action covering jurors’ identities.

They want “a protective order that would prohibit disclosure of juror names to anyone other than Trump and his attorneys,” ABC News reported.

The push coincided with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s team also seeking a limited gag order blocking certain public commentary from the former president in relation to the case. Prosecutors want restrictions on potential public comments about witnesses, court staff, and others. Trump’s public commentary is frequently the subject of concerns about potential violence, particularly considering the precedent of both the early 2021 Capitol attack and extensive threats against figures somehow opposite Trump politically.

Trump already faced gag orders in two other cases, including the fraud case from New York state Attorney General Letitia James that recently culminated in hundreds of millions of dollars in financial penalties for the ex-president, though an expected and slowly unfolding appeals process was looming.

In the criminal case, the Trump team already failed before presiding Judge Juan Merchan in a recent push to put proceedings on ice in consideration of Trump’s ongoing campaign for president, which he announced after the underlying investigation was publicly known. The case accuses Trump of the falsification of business records in connection to hush money given to Stormy Daniels before the 2016 presidential election.

Trump alleges that the non-federal authorities targeting him are somehow in cahoots with the Biden administration, which the facts don’t support. “The Very Strict Rules and Regulations of the Department of Injustice STATE CLEARLY that you can’t prosecute a Political Opponent, or anyone, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS/HER CAMPAIGN,” Trump said online, referring to who-knows-what and later adding incorrectly: “This includes DOJ subservient “subsidiaries” like local D.A. & A.G. Offices.”