Donald J. Trump was fined another $1,000 for again violating a gag order as his trial enters its third week of testimony. Stormy Daniels, the porn star at the center of it, could soon take the stand.
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.
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.