Roger Stone 'Continues to Fan the Flames' Despite Gag Order, Prosecutors Say
Federal prosecutors argue Stone should face a hearing over whether new social media posts violate the terms of his release and a gag order.
June 20, 2019 at 04:51 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Federal prosecutors are accusing longtime Donald Trump confidante Roger Stone of violating a court-imposed gag order by commenting about his case on social media.
In court papers filed Thursday, federal prosecutors in Washington asked U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia to set a hearing to confront Stone about social media posts that the government contends violate the conditions of his release in a pending criminal case.
Prosecutors accused Stone of violating Jackson's gag order by making statements on Instagram and Facebook about the special counsel's investigation. The posts were aimed at national media by tagging publications like The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and Wall Street Journal.
The posts referred to government corruption discovered by Stone's legal team and the “Russian hoax,” and the FBI's refusal to turn any emails between the FBI and CNN from the day he was arrested. Stone previously came under fire for posts on social media, including one that included a cross hair over Jackson's head.
“But these posts are arguably even worse, because they risk tainting the jury pool with information that is not relevant but that may appear, to some, to be relevant,” prosecutors said in Thursday's court filing. “At best, Stone's efforts could create the misimpression that this case is about issues that are not charged in the indictment, and risk the trial 'devolv[ing] into a circus.' But worse, it could confuse prospective jurors or color how they later view the actually-relevant evidence and understand the court's instructions about that evidence.”
Prosecutors argued that Jackson's orders restricting Stone's speech have not worked. Stone “nonetheless continues to fan the flames,” the government said.
Stone's defense lawyers pushed back Thursday, saying their client limited his comments to widely reported news and court filings.
“We are disappointed in, and surprised by, the government's unrealized fears,” said Grant Smith of Fort Lauderdale-based StrategySmith. “Mr. Stone has limited his comments to matters widely reported in the news or public court filings. The government's motion is ill advised and an astonishing overreaction.”
Stone's legal team includes also includes Robert Buschel of Buschel & Gibbons, Bruce Rogow and Tara Campion.
Stone is fighting charges that he lied to congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, obstructed justice and tampered with a witness. Prosecutors working under special counsel Robert Mueller III and the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., Jessie Liu, contend Stone lied to conceal efforts he and Trump campaign officials made in 2016 to get information from WikiLeaks about the release of hacked Democratic Party emails.
After Stone was indicted in January, Jackson placed a limited order that prohibited Stone from making public statements near the courthouse that would “pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case.” But he was otherwise allowed to speak freely with the media.
Jackson expanded that gag order in February after Stone made a post on Instagram that featured a crosshair near the judge's face. Defense lawyers apologized to Jackson for the “improper photograph and comment.” At a court hearing, Stone asked for a second chance. “It was a stupid, egregious mistake,” he said.
“Mr. Stone fully understands the power of words and the power of symbols and there's nothing ambiguous about crosshairs,” Jackson said.
That expanded order prohibits Stone from speaking publicly about the special counsel's investigation, his case or any of the participants. Stone was also barred from participating in interviews, press conferences or releases, or social media posts, but is permitted to solicit donations for his legal defense fund.
|The government's notice is filed below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllState Appellate Court Affirms $2.75M Jury Verdict in Negligence Suit Against Railroad Co.
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250