General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Judge Amy Berman Jackson is not happy with Stone this morning. [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)This is the order in question, incidentally:
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583.36.0_6.pdf
It is hereby ORDERED that
Counsel for the parties and the witnesses must refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case; and
it is FURTHER ORDERED that
all interested participants in the matter, including the parties, any potential witnesses, and counsel for the parties and the witnesses, must refrain, when they are entering or exiting the courthouse, or they are within the immediate vicinity of the courthouse, from making statements to the media or to the public that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case or are intended to influence any juror, potential juror, judge, witness or court officer or interfere with the administration of justice. There will be no additional restrictions imposed on the defendants public statements or appearances at this time, although this order may be amended in the future consistent with Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) if necessary.
Stone was prohibited from making certain types of statements at or in the vicinity of the courthouse. His Instagram post is clearly not in violation of the previous order.
So, the judge may consider amending the order, but there is no ground for him to be held in contempt or any of the other various retributive notions in this thread.