The gag order was issued by Raul Arias Marxuach, the federal judge presiding over the case. The order prohibits parties from expressing themselves outside the judicial process on matters that have not been publicly expressed before the court.
They can only talk about the content of motions and court orders that have been filed publicly.
The judge pointed out that while it was intended to guarantee the accused’s rights to a fair trial, public attention has received the case, which is the second time that someone ruling Puerto Rico has been charged on the island.
“The Protective Order does not protect Vazquez Garcád’s Sixth Amendment rights, as the Court intended. Unsurprisingly, it serves as a sword and shield for the public ministry,” the defense motion said.
“The implicit bias in media coverage in favor of the public ministry, together with a general gag order that barred Vazquez Garcád from responding, constitutes a prior restriction of his First Amendment rights (of the United States Constitution to free expression) and Endangers your Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury,” he said.
Meanwhile, in a motion filed yesterday, lawyers for Vázquez Garsad defended themselves against Judge Arias Marxuach’s allegations that publicity of the case included his appearance before the media before the federal grand jury charges.
He stressed that “the presence of defense lawyers was the result of widespread leaks and media coverage of an investigation against the governor and reports that the FBI has confiscated his cell phone.”
“Governor Vazquez Garcid has requested the court’s authority to supplement this explanation with a more detailed description of the events that led to the appearance of defense lawyers in the media prior to the charge,” he said.
Vázquez Garçond’s defense arguments against the gag order were first presented by co-defendant Marc Rossini, who raised on August 30 that he was excluded from the disposition of the judge.
In that motion, the defense requested that he be put out of order because “it is detrimental to Mr. Rossini.”
Like Vázquez Garsed, Rossini was concerned that reviews prevailed over motions issued by the federal prosecutor’s office, which in the early stages of the judicial process usually informed the distribution of the discovery of evidence.
“The overwhelming and persistent narrative about Mr. Rossini that has been presented to the jury by the media pertains to the government’s allegations of criminal conduct of Mr. Rossini. The protection order is unconstitutional to the extent necessary to allow Mr. Rossini to obtain a fair trial.” Prevents you from making your defense clear.
In support of his argument, he cited jurisprudence from the Sixth Circuit of Appeals to indicate that “‘a defendant’s interest in fighting the charges and engaging in public adversity is … at its peak’ when ‘the defendant’ Criminally awaiting trial in a controversial case.”
It also said that a false order “which effectively silences a defendant, defeats the purpose of the Sixth Amendment and should not remain in effect.”
Rossini’s defense insisted that his client did not request the order, although media reports “have focused on the allegations against him and are not favorable to him.”
While acknowledging that the gag order was meant to “rescue damage already done,” Rossini’s lawyers say it actually “does more harm than good.”
It added that “the order of protection, by potentially prohibiting Mr Rossini from describing the nature of his defense and claiming his innocence to the press and public without restraint in response to the avalanche of negative media attention, An unfair and potentially unconstitutional restriction on their freedom of expression and should be repealed.”
for its part, The federal prosecutor’s office indicated it “has no objection to suspending the (gag) order for the time being”.,
This was indicated by prosecutor Ryan Crosswell of the United States Department of Justice’s Public Integrity Division in a motion he filed in court yesterday in response to Rossini’s statements.
They acknowledged that before the charges were brought against Vazquez Garsed, Rossini and banker Julio Herrera Velutini, “the defendants had public profiles” and shared concerns about the attention received by the case at “local, national and international” levels. .
However, Crosswell said there are “less restrictive means of addressing the inappropriate public commentary on the matter.” As an example, he highlighted that the Federal District Court for Puerto Rico has “punishments for attorneys who participate in extraordinary statements that violate local regulations”.
He also recalled that there could be a penalty for “any lawyer or defendant disclosing information presented in pursuit of evidence”, as there is a separate court order that governs disclosure of information about evidence provided by the Ministry of Public Affairs. prohibits. Defense.
In addition, he explained that “additional questions may be added to any party negatively affected by another party’s public comment in the jury selection process”, while if “inappropriate additional commentary” arises, the gag order may be suspended. can be restored.
A federal grand jury released on 3 August seven-count indictment Against Vazquez Garced, Herrera Velutini and Rossini. All three face 20 years in prison on charges of conspiracy, bribery and fraud.
In addition to working in the past as an FBI agent, Herrera Velutino is the owner of Bancocredito and Rossini was his advisor.
According to a federal grand jury indictment, the three conspired with Rossini, with the help of Rossini, to obtain contributions from the banker to his gubernatorial campaign in exchange for the then official who removed George Joyner from the office of financial commissioner. Institutions (OCIF) to conclude the audit had detected suspicious transactions in Herrera Velutini’s bank accounts.
