Georgia Judge Issues Potentially Unconstitutional Gag Order in 'Cop City' Trial

The trial of the first of 61 defendants starts today, but the judge has seemingly forbidden any of the defendants or their attorneys from discussing the case.

On Monday, jury selection began in the first trial against a defendant indicted for opposing an Atlanta police training facility. The trial has already produced possible civil liberties violations, with the judge issuing what could be an unconstitutional gag order.

For nearly two years, activists in Georgia have engaged in a protest movement opposing the proposed Atlanta Public Safety Training Center. The facility, which opponents derisively call "Cop City," is to be built on an undeveloped patch of land in the forest. The protests have occasionally turned violent, and in January, police shot and killed a protester. (Police claim the activist fired first, though subsequent autopsies dispute that notion.)

In September, the state attorney general announced indictments against 61 defendants under the state's Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. RICO statutes, originally drafted to go after mafia bosses, allow prosecutors to build cases against entire criminal organizations rather than simply low-level enforcers.

One Cop City defendant, Ayla King, filed a motion in October demanding a speedy trial. Last week, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Kimberly Esmond Adams granted the motion, setting a trial date for Monday. Jury selection began this afternoon.

But Adams went much further, ordering that the parties and their attorneys "refrain from any extra-judicial communications concerning the proceedings, including, but not specifically limited to, granting interviews, making or expressing opinions about the subject matter of these proceedings; posting, commenting or 'liking' posts on social media; or, more generally, any other communication concerning the proceedings, the parties or the subject matter of the indictment."

"That's an unconstitutional order," says Andrew Fleischman, an Atlanta attorney with Sessions & Fleischman. "Ordinarily, you need to establish the necessity of a gag order," which should have a "narrow scope." U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is currently presiding over the federal trial against Donald Trump for his attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, issued a gag order against the former president in October. Chutkan's order specifically aimed to prevent Trump from "publicly targeting" the other participants in the trial, including not only witnesses but court reporters. On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the order but slightly narrowed its scope, removing a prohibition on Trump criticizing Special Counsel Jack Smith.

"The appeals court narrowed it because, of course, it's a restriction on speech," Fleischman told Reason. "It's normally got to face strict scrutiny," the highest standard of review by which a court evaluates the constitutionality of government action.

Adams' order, on the other hand, is extremely broad, keeping all involved parties from engaging in any discussion about the case whatsoever. While King is the only defendant currently on trial, all Cop City defendants were charged as part of the same case. An attorney representing a different defendant declined to speak to Reason about the case on the record, saying of the gag order, "No one knows for certain if it is just for King or everyone."

Of course, the order comes after state officials have spent most of 2023 talking about the case in the press. Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr has held press conferences and appeared in local and national media to talk about the case.

Comments

[Chumby]

Georgia and gag in a headline made me think it was a story about one of Pluggo’s victims.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD 2: Steampunk Boogaloo]

It’s a real shame he’s alive.

[rekefak227]

nice post

[Mother's Lament]

"The trial of the first of 61 defendants starts today, but the judge has seemingly forbidden any of the defendants or their attorneys from discussing the case."

Trump was a trendsetter, yet again. But Reason didn't mind at the time because orangeman was rude and said mean things about the prosecution and judge.

[Minadin]

Was that the same judge and prosecutor who purposefully inflated a tax assessment with a real estate valuation?

[Pear Satirical]

No, that judge is in New York.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

You know who else is under an unconstitutional gag order?

[Vernon Depner]

Kamala?

[Davy C]

No, because they can't talk about it.

[rloquitur]

Hmmm. Let's see---someone who is criminally charged loses First Amendment rights? One thing to condition the receipt of information on not disclosing it or to refrain from threatening witnesses (as opposed to criticizing them), which is constitutional--but quite another to just forbid speech on the basis of a criminal charge.

[TLoro]

It's fear. The DA knows that the majority of the Atlanta populace is against cop city. So he has got to keep everything under wraps. It's the jury selection that will tell I'm looking for this to get popped by an appellate court.

[Carey Allison]

So the judge issues a "gag order". And the penalty for ignoring it is contempt of court. Hell, they don't shoot you for ignoring a gag order or any other flavor of contempt of court. Say what you want, tell the "honorable" judge to phook himself and let it ride. You're not gonna get much accomplished during the trial anyway. A couple, or ten, thousand people telling judges to phook themselves might have a beneficial effect.

It goes back to that old canard - "You can't lock everybody up!"

[Kyfho Myoba]

Clearly unconstitutional. Courts other than the top court are created by legislatures. All 50 states have an equivalent of a free speech amendment to their constitutions. No legislature can delegate a power it does not possess. Courts have no subject matter jurisdiction to issue gag orders that have effect outside the courtroom. Judges may only gag to effectively administer the operation of the court.

[Agammamon]

"On Monday, jury selection began in the first trial against a defendant indicted for opposing an Atlanta police training facility."

You can tell an article's gonna be *lit* when the very first sentence is a lie.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

So Reason has taken the position that a gag order on a former president who is the statistical favorite to be elected next year is totally cool because some guy says that "slight" modifications by an appellate panel can assure the proles that it now survives "strict scrutiny"? Have I got that right? A gag order is a straightforward denial of free speech. Strict scrutiny is a weasel phrase invented by judges to empower themselves to violate the 1st amendment whenever they feel like it. Desperate to defend violent leftists, Reason is compelled by current circumstances to acknowledge gag orders on Trump in what every rational observer knows are political prosecutions. But it's all cool. Orange man bad. Lefty tree huggers good.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Oh no… not an unconstitutional gag order!

[Vernon Depner]

All of the sudden Joe supports due process rights for RICO defendants...

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Don’t forget tax dodging crackhead whoremongers who launder money!

[DRM]

Ahem.

Police claim the activist fired first, though subsequent autopsies dispute that notion.

No, they don’t, you lying son-of-a-bitch.

[A Thinking Mind]

But Adams went much further, ordering that the parties and their attorneys "refrain from any extra-judicial communications concerning the proceedings, including, but not specifically limited to, granting interviews, making or expressing opinions about the subject matter of these proceedings; posting, commenting or 'liking' posts on social media; or, more generally, any other communication concerning the proceedings, the parties or the subject matter of the indictment."

Utter bullshit. She's punishing a defendant for pushing for speedy trial, in my opinion. Because to properly address this, you need to appeal that decision, but doing so would necessarily delay the trial. And once you agree to a delay in your trial, you've likely waived your right to a speedy trial. So in essence, this judge is forcing a defendant to choose between rights. "You can have free speech, or you can have a speedy trial, but you're not getting both."

It's gross and disgusting.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Now do people who have been held for two and a half years without being charged, you goddamn hypocritical asshole.

[Carey Allison]

Violate the order, tell the honorable judge to phook himself, take the penalty, attempt to lure the judge out on a limb that can later be sawed off.

[AT]

OK, so reflexively we want to be against this - but we're seeing this more and more come out of the Courts, and they actually have a pretty good reason for it that you might not have considered and probably support.

The Courts are - by far - the most important branch of the government. They're the ones that the average citizen is most likely to encounter personally, and for our system of government to work, those citizens have to be able to trust those Courts to deliver fair and impartial justice.

And let's face it - that trust is at an all time low. It's easy to immediately claim that's because of systemic corruption, but it's not.

It's because of clickbait.

It's because we've got an internet full of ignorant morons with bullhorns, a truly corrupted media peddling narrative and agenda, and a self-serving State (including one very famous ex-president) who are out there OPENLY disrupting the Court's ability to do its job, and trying to get their pet causes and/or perceived "persecution" tried in the Court of Public Opinion rather than the Court of Law.

Of course we value transparency in government and free expression, and what happens in/with the Courts included. We also (hopefully) value justice - but here's the thing: most people don't know what that means. Because they're ignorant. Ignorant of things like the Rules of Evidence, and Civil/Criminal Procedure.

Take any recent high profile case. J6, Rittenhouse, Chauvin - even if you hadn't made up your mind ahead of time, you know darn well most of America already did. Without evidence, without any understanding of legal procedure, without any meaningful information on the subject whatsoever.

Thanks to the clickbait. And prejudice. Which helped form an unwillingness to say, "I don't know, that's for the Court to decide," and then accept that decision as justice rendered. Even if - especially if - you disagree with it.

I'm not saying that the Court is infallible. They screw up all the time. They've also spent the better part of two centuries refining how to prevent, or more often fix those screw ups the best they can.

"or, more generally, any other communication concerning the proceedings, the parties or the subject matter of the indictment"

I get it.

I'm not saying you should agree with it, just that you should understand it. They don't want to silence you, and they don't want to betray the Constitution. They're simply trying to protect the ability of the Courts TO provide justice. And they're doing so against a massive army of those who John Adams warned us about.

I don't like it, but I can accept it. The Justice System - the Constitution - cannot tolerate the grossly ignorant Court of Public Opinion's intrusion in every hearing and verdict, undermining its ability to deliver due process, equal protection, and impartial verdicts under the Constitution.

If the Courts fall - America falls. No President or Congress can possibly stop that.

[Carey Allison]

I respectfully disagree. The major problem with the court system is the number of judges who are willing to insert their personal preferences in to, if necessary ignoring black letter law in the lawbooks to do so. I have very limited first hand experience with the court system of this country, but enough to know there's rules for me and some other rules for thee if thee is the right person.

[Carey Allison]

Edit still isn't work to allow spelling or grammar or word omission typo corrections. Is this by design or did Reason administrators/web masters just phook up again?

[AT]

I take your point, and it's not unreasonable - but I'm curious if you have any specific examples in mind. And by specific, I mean someone charged with a specific crime (or torts alleged) under very similar circumstances, who received radically different prosecution/ruling/sentencing based on explicit abuses by the judge. (I'm thinking kinda in terms of the oft criticized, but still precedent Armstrong test.)

It's funny, on a quasi-related topic, I'm reading a book right now and the very next day after read/posting to this article, it had this line: "He loved the power of a free press. Its power was amplified when everyone had a voice. Theories without a foundation in facts or basis in reality could take flight and go viral. No barriers to entry. No editors. No fact checking, or if there was, it couldn't be trusted; "fact checkers" had biases and agendas too, after all. The loudest voices dominated the chaos that was social media hysteria, and all of it contributed to the chaos."

It's applied to a radically different subject, but it's precisely what I was trying to articulate in a less verbose and more eloquent way. The Courts, the very notion of "Justice", are agents of Order. And the reason we're seeing more of this from them, is because Chaos is battering its rams against their halls - and they don't know what else to do.

And frankly, neither do I.

[Mickey Rat]

And, of course, Lancaster ends using the language of the violent and absurd protesters to describe the case.

[Michael Ejercito]

Usually prosecutors would want their defendants to talk as much as they can. After all, the State does have to inform defendants of their right to remain silent. Why actually shut them up?

[Djea3]

Anytime that there is any political implication in any trial in GA there will always be a GAG ORDER, unless GA HIGH COURTS or FEDERAL COURTS rule instantly that such an order shall be unlawful without meeting at least "preponderance of the evidence showing necessity".
GA is becoming a LEFTIST FASCIST state