Episode 4991: The Trial For Charlie Kirks Assassin; Massive Defeat In Indiana

episode

Bannon`s War Room 1h 3m 6 speakers 6 chapters transcribed

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the rules of professional conduct for prosecutors?

Unknown 0:00

of the rules of professional conduct that deal specifically with requirements for prosecutors.

Steve Bannon 0:06

This is the war room requirements for Provo, Utah, debating the Charlie Kirk assassination. We're going to follow this for a while.

Unknown 0:11

Investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees, or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor. So in other words, the prosecution team. And there's no rule or...

What is the significance of the prosecution team in the Charlie Kirk assassination trial?

Unknown 0:25

case law or statute that expands the prosecution's duties beyond that group, the prosecution team. So with respect to clarity, we're seeking clarity as to what exactly does the court mean by witnesses. And we think the court just means the prosecution team because if that term stretches beyond just the prosecution team, then the order is written we don't believe is a valid and lawful order because it would result in a prior restraint on certain speech and at the very least would have a chilling effect on that speech. If the prosecution agrees that we have an ethical duty to take reasonable measures to make sure that those who are identified with the prosecution team are alerted to the requirements of the court's order and to make sure that they do not make a statement that the prosecutors themselves would not be able to make a public statement.

Unknown 1:34

But if the order extends beyond that, then we have concerns because a prior restraint is an order that forbids certain communications in advance of the time that they are to occur. as the court of appeals has recognized the Utah court of appeals has recognized in state versus LM and widespread publicity in a case does not itself justify a prior restraint. The, as, um, the United States Supreme court is recognized in Nebraska press association there. There's no justification for a prior restraint unless it's clear that the, the further publicity, unchecked would so distort the views of potential jurors that you couldn't find 12 jurors who could be fair and impartial. That's the high standard that applies in this case.

Unknown 2:31

And so in order to apply a prior restraint to persons beyond the prosecution team, the court would need to engage in a very detailed and demanding analysis. The court would have to make a factual finding of necessity that the speech that would be restrained poses a risk of material prejudice to the ongoing judicial proceedings. The court would need to make findings that there are no less restrictive measures and that the prohibitions are likely to prevent the potential prejudice and that whatever prohibitions this court decides on are very narrowly tailored. And as the state has explained, the Spencer versus State case from the Arkansas Supreme Court that just issued earlier this year is very helpful, I think, on this issue in explaining the analysis that applies to various different people that might be associated with a criminal case.

Unknown 3:33

You have attorneys. That category of trial participants certainly the court has the highest degree of ability to be able to restrain the speech of attorneys. And in fact, as I've expressed, the ethical rules require that. But when it comes to trial participants, like witnesses, the standards are more demanding as far as restricting the speech of trial participants. Spencer case pointed out, non-attorney trial participants, the court can impose a restraint on their speech only to the extent that the court first finds that any speech by those non-attorney trial participants poses a serious and imminent threat of material prejudice to the ongoing proceeding. And I think the court also needs to note that there are

Unknown 4:34

There are several people associated with this case who have very significant interests in exercising their First Amendment rights in talking about how this case has affected them. And of course, I can't say that one person's First Amendment right is more important than another person's. But there are certainly some people here who have a larger, some people involved who have a larger or a greater interest

How does the court define 'witnesses' in the context of this case?

Unknown 5:04

in speaking than others. And so I think the court needs to take that into consideration if this order is meant to apply beyond just the prosecution team.