If the judge makes a gag order to Roger Stone, he can simply rape her anyway

United States. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Friday warned Donald Trump's confidant, Roger Stone, that she had already seen a lot of publicity in her criminal case. The judge warned Stone not to turn his suit into a public relations campaign and suggested he make a gag order in the case.

The judge has already issued an order barring Stone from providing information to the media. On Friday, Jackson issued a protection order prohibiting the defense from disclosing a discovery revealed by the government to anyone unauthorized by the court to receive these documents.

This type of order is allowed under a federal court rule allowing the judge to restrict discovery for the good cause shown. If a party challenges that order, the same rule allows the court to "enter any order … just in the circumstances", which may include penalties.

Notwithstanding this order, which prevents the defense from transmitting documents to the media or unauthorized persons, the judge may also seize another restraining order advertising, under a different rule. A Columbia District District Court rule restricts the flow of information from court staff, lawyers, and the parties themselves.

This court recently issued a similar order. in another high-profile case: the criminal prosecution of Paul Manafort: in the Jackson District Court, the court ordered all parties – but especially the lawyers – to refrain from making public statements or making comments to the media of materially detrimental consequences on this case. "

Manafort's lawyers, like all defense lawyers, have privileged access to effective communications.Sometimes extrajudicial statements from a defense attorney can, as Jackson said, "to pose a threat to the fairness of a pending lawsuit."

This same local rule that allowed Jackson to "gag" Manafort's lawyers allows the court to "gag" Roger The Stone Defendant

In a sensational or high-profile case, a federal court may issue a special order restricting the out-of-court statements of parties, witnesses, and lawyers that may infringe the right to a fair trial before an impartial jury.

The purpose of these limitations is to avoid comments that may influence the outcome of the trial and any remarks that may be detrimental to the jury.

i restricts the speech of trial participants may give the impression of a violation of the first amendment. . But gag orders under this rule of the court are constitutional to the extent that they are duly justified. Most courts have required pre-trial advertising to have a "reasonable likelihood" of infringing the right to a fair trial before making a gag order.

Other courts apply more stringent standards. they will not give such an order unless the fairness of the trial is clearly or seriously threatened, and nothing less than a restraining order would effectively mitigate the injury.

As long as Jackson can formulate a reasonable likelihood that out-of-court statements could threaten Stone's right to a fair trial, the court may order Roger Stone to remain gagged.

If he does, Stone could rape him anyway.

Despite the judicious opinion of his lawyers to comply with all courts. Stone may make the strategic decision to violate those that restrict his public statements.

Stone may conclude that the public release of information or the making of out-of-court statements is worth the risk of being caught violating a protection or gag order. Stone has made a lucrative career in manipulating public perception. He knows how to do it and he knows how to get results as a "trickster". Why would his own criminal trial be different?

For Stone, if he can surreptitiously control the narrative, he may be able An influence on his own lawsuit may prove too alluring, despite the court's broad power to punish him for it. To have challenged.

Danny Cevallos is a legal analyst at MSNBC. Follow @CevallosLaw on Twitter.