NewYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
This week I received the following email: Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) members were warned about a message posted by President Maggie Castinado, President-Elect James T. (Tim) Shearin, and Vice President Emily A. Gianquinto warning them about criticizing the prosecution of former President. Donald TrumpThe message from bar leadership is chilling for lawyers who view cases like Manhattan’s as a crude political prosecution. Although the letter does not explicitly state that such criticism would be considered unethical conduct, it does say that criticism has “no place in public discourse” and calls on members to speak out publicly in support of the integrity of these legal proceedings.
The statement begins by warning members that “words matter” but then leaves it up to members of the bar to decide how much this matters to them. It simply says that certain comments will be seen as “crossing the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric.”
According to CBAIt is now considered careless and unprofessional to compare such cases to sham trials or to question the integrity of the legal system or judges.
For example, criticizing Judge Juan Merchan Charges have been filed against him for refusing to recuse himself from the case. Many lawyers believe that his political contributions to the presidential race were Biden and his daughter in the lead role Democratic The fund raiser and activist should have prompted Merchan to remove himself (and any appearance of conflict). I have been more critical of his decisions, which I feel Both were biased And it is wrong.
Former President Donald Trump chairs the Republican National Committee’s spring donor retreat on May 4, 2024 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Donald Trump 2024 campaign)
Still, the CBA is warning lawyers that such comments can cross the line. The letter assures members they are free to criticize, but warns that attacking a judge’s ethics or the motivations behind these cases is dangerous and could incite violence.
I have previously condemned incendiary rhetoric and expressed concern about how such incendiary rhetoric can incite violence. After the verdict, I immediately encouraged people not to give in to their anger and to trust our legal system. I believe the verdict in New York will ultimately be vindicating the legal system. OverturnedI also stated that I did not blame the jury, but rather the judge and prosecutors for a baseless and unfair trial.
Of course, concern about angry rhetoric runs rampant across our political spectrum. While it is rarely criticized in the media, we have seen a rise in reckless rhetoric on the part of the left. For example, Georgetown Law professor Josh Chafetz declares that “when the crowd is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are appropriate.”
Trump’s trial was an ‘abuse’ of US justice system
My concern is not the appeal to lawyers to take care that their comments do not encourage such “aggressive tactics.” The problem is that lawyers are somehow acting unprofessionally because they are condemning what many consider to be a two-tier system of justice and the politicization of our legal system.
Former President Donald Trump’s hush-money case was heard by Judge Juan Marchan in New York City. Trump will be sentenced on July 11 after being found guilty on all 34 counts last month. (AP Photo)
Like many, I believe the Manhattan case was a clear example of such weaponization of the legal system and one that all lawyers should condemn. In my view, it is a return to the kind of political prosecution that was once common in this country.
Lawyers who see such prosecutions as political are speaking out in defense of the essence of blind justice in America. What is “reckless” for the CBA is just right for others. Notably, CBA officials did not write to condemn attacks on such individuals. Bill’s Baror claims that Justice Department Justice was rigged during Trump’s reign.
Likewise, the letter focuses on critics of the Trump prosecution, not conservative jurists such as Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. It has never published a warning about those who abuse conservative judges, attack their religion, or call them “partisan hacks” or even other “insurgent supporters.” Liberal activists are calling for conservative jurists to be stopped “by any means.”
In Connecticut, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal has warned conservative judges to rule correctly or face “seismic changes.” This does not seem to worry the bar. Similarly, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer“I want to say to you, (Justice Neil) Gorsuch, I want to say to you, (Justice Brett) Kavanaugh, you have unleashed a firestorm, and you are going to pay a price,” the judge, D-N.Y., also declared before the Supreme Court.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
The letter goes on to say that the view that lawyers should speak out publicly in support of lawsuits like the one in Manhattan ignores deep doubts about the motivations and means used in New York to target an unpopular figure in this city. You have top CBA officials publicly calling on lawyers to take a stance that is opposed by many lawyers and citizens in defending the integrity of these lawsuits. Imagine the reaction if the Idaho State Bar called on its lawyers to speak out against these cases and declared that defending them was negligent or unprofessional.
I expect that in a very liberal CBA, this letter is hardly needed. In fact, this letter is likely to be quite popular. Still, I wish CBA officials would have paid more attention to the need to respect different opinions on these tests and to avoid any statements that might stifle the exercise of free speech.
Ironically, the letter has only reinforced the view of a legal system that upholds political orthodoxies and agendas. These officials have declared that it is now unprofessional or reckless for lawyers to make historical comparisons to show trials or to question the motives or ethics behind these cases. They warn lawyers not to “create public distrust of the courts where it is not needed.” Still, many believe there is a dangerous threat to our legal system and that distrust is justified in the wake of cases like the one in Manhattan.
Wisconsin lawmaker says Trump did not disrespect the city of Milwaukee
Donald Trump arrives at Trump Tower in New York City on May 30, 2024 after being found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. (Felipe Ramales for Fox News Digital)
As discussed in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” critics of political prosecutions under the Crown and during the Adams administration were often threatened with expulsion or other legal action for questioning the integrity or motives of judges or prosecutors. It is not enough to say “well that was then and this is now.” The point is that the bar association also has a duty to protect the basic rights that define our legal system, especially the right to free speech.
To read more articles by Jonathan Turley click here
Again, these officials are not threatening action against critics of these cases. However, as the emails in my inbox show, this is being taken as a warning by many who are skeptical of these prosecutions.
Our justice system has no need to fear criticism. In fact, freedom of speech strengthens our system by exposing divisions and encouraging dialogue. It is conservatism and speech intolerance that pose the most serious threats to that system.
Here is the CBA’s full message:
Dear Members,
Words matter. Reckless words that attack the integrity of our judicial system matter even more.
Following the recent trial and conviction of former President Donald Trump, government officials have issued statements claiming that the trial was a “sham”, “hoax” and “rigged”; that our justice system is “corrupt and rigged”; that the judges were “corrupt” and “highly unethical”; and that the jury was “biased” and “pre-picked”. Others claimed that the trial was “America’s first communist show trial” – a reference to historical purges of high-ranking communist officials that were used to eliminate political threats.
These claims are baseless and reckless. Such statements could incite acts of violence against those who serve the public as employees of the judicial branch. Indeed, such statements have resulted in threats against those fulfilling their civic duty by sitting on juries, as evidenced by social media postings that sought to identify the names and addresses of anonymous jurors and, worse, in several cases urging that jurors be shot or hanged. Most importantly, such statements attack the integrity of the third branch of government and create public distrust of the courts, which is not justified.
To be clear, freedom of expression includes criticism. There is no restriction on commenting on the decision to bring a prosecution, the prosecution’s legal theory, the judge’s rulings, or the verdict itself. But headline-grabbing, unfounded allegations leveled by public officials cross the line from criticism to dangerous rhetoric. They have no place in public discourse.
It is up to us as lawyers to defend the courts and our judges. As individuals and as a union we cannot allow the charged political climate in which we live to destroy the third branch of government. Staying silent makes us complicit in that effort.
Respect for the judicial system is essential to our democracy. The CBA condemns unsupported attacks on the integrity of that system.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, 2024).
