• dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    As I understand it, though, the point of the gag order was to prevent the witnesses from being intimidated before their testimony. The trial is over, and there will be no more testimony. So a gag order on them is no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the trial process.

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      The trial is over, and there will be no more testimony

      I see - I assumed wrongly they would need to testify again in a retrial if an appeal was won.

      Wasn’t there also talk of declaring a mistrial at some point? Would they testify again in that case?

      • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not to mention retaliation; I would fear for my life if I was a witness and my name was made public for this case, ever.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      a gag order on them is no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the trial process.

      But still necessary to minimize the risk of his crazed cult following violently targeting the witnesses he continues to demonize.

      Upholding that protection is ESPECIALLY important when it comes to a widely viewed event such as a presidential debate.