report on visit to district court

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

FAQs: Filing a Case

How do i file a civil case is there a charge, how do i file a criminal case, how do i file for bankruptcy is there a charge, how can i find a lawyer, how can i check on the status of my case can i review case files, when will the court reach a decision in my case, how are judges assigned to cases, how do i file a complaint against a judge.

A civil action is commenced by the filing of a complaint. Parties instituting a civil action in a district court are required to pay a filing fee pursuant to Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 1914. The current fee is $350. Complaints may be accompanied by an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning that the plaintiff is incapable of paying the filing fee. Proceedings in forma pauperis are governed by Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 1915.

Individuals do not file criminal charges in U.S. district courts. A criminal proceeding is initiated by the government, usually through the U.S. attorney's office in coordination with a law enforcement agency. Allegations of criminal behavior should be brought to local police, the FBI, or other appropriate law enforcement agency.

A bankruptcy case is commenced by the filing of a petition. You must also file a statement of your assets and liabilities, and schedules listing your creditors. If you choose to file a bankruptcy petition without the assistance of an attorney, you can obtain the required forms at most stationery stores or at www.uscourts.gov .

Filing fees  for bankruptcy cases vary, depending on the chapter of the bankruptcy code under which you file. Chapter 7, by far the most common form filed by individuals, involves an almost complete liquidation of the assets of the debtor, as well as a discharge of most debts. See Bankruptcy Basics .

In most districts, local bar associations or similar groups offer lawyer referral services, usually without charge. The clerk's office in your district court should be able to put you in touch with such a service. Many clerk's offices also have developed informational packets explaining filing procedures and listing sources of legal assistance. Personnel in the clerk's office and other federal court employees are prohibited from providing legal advice to individual litigants.

Defendants in criminal proceedings have a right to a lawyer, and are entitled by the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) to have counsel appointed at government expense if they are financially unable to obtain adequate representation by private counsel. The CJA, which is set forth in Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 3006A, requires a court determination that a person is financially eligible for court-appointed counsel. A court may determine that a defendant is partially eligible for court-appointed counsel and order the defendant to contribute to the cost of representation. Counsel assigned to a defendant may be a private lawyer, who is a member of the court's panel of attorneys receiving CJA appointments, or, in many districts, an attorney who works for a federal defender organization. The clerk's office has forms that can be used to apply for the appointment of counsel.

There is no right to free legal assistance in civil proceedings. Some litigants proceed pro se; that is, they represent themselves before the court.

Your lawyer, who likely is familiar with local court practice, is your best resource. Generally, all documents filed with a court are public records and are available through the clerk's office. By way of exception, some documents are sealed by special court order, and some documents are confidential by operation of law, such as grand jury materials and criminal files relating to juveniles.

As the keeper of court records, the clerk's office responds to most inquiries on the status of a case once given the specific case name or docket number. In many courts, inquiries for information and requests to examine dockets, case files, exhibits, and other records are made at the intake area in the clerk's office. Inquiries often are made by phone. There is a $26 fee for every search of the records conducted by the clerk's office. A fee of $ .50 per page is assessed for reproducing any record or paper record or $ .10 per page, for printing copies of any records or document accessed electronically at the public access terminal in the courthouse.

Almost all federal courts have automated systems that allow for the search and retrieval of case-related information through personal computers at public counters and through an internet service called PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). Electronic access to case-related information is available free of charge at the public counter in the clerk's office of most courts. The PACER service, which provides remote access to case-related information for registered users, currently assesses a fee of $.08 per page.

In many bankruptcy and appellate courts there also are telephone information systems, which enable callers to obtain basic case information through the use of a touch tone phone. These systems are provided free of charge, are available 24 hours a day, and have a toll free number for long distance service.

For more information, visit the PACER  website.

Most cases are handled in an expeditious manner. The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 establishes standard time requirements for the timely prosecution and disposition of criminal cases in district courts. There is no similar law governing civil trial scheduling, and as a result, the scheduling of criminal cases is assigned a higher priority.

In 1990, Congress enacted legislation that directs each district court to devise and adopt a civil expense and delay reduction plan. One goal established under the legislation is for each civil case to be scheduled for trial within 18 months of filing the complaint.

Litigants should keep in mind that judges have many duties in addition to deciding cases. The average district court judge has more than 400 newly filed cases to contend with each year. In addition to trials, judges conduct sentencings, pretrial conferences, settlement conferences, motions hearings, write orders and opinions, and consider other court matters both in the courtroom and in their chambers.

There are numerous reasons for delay, many of which are outside of a court's control, and for which attorneys and/or litigants may be responsible. Cases may be delayed because settlement negotiations are in progress. Some courts also experience shortages in judges or available courtrooms.

Judge assignment methods vary. The basic considerations in making assignments are to assure equitable distribution of caseloads and avoid judge shopping. By statute, the chief judge of each district court has the responsibility to enforce the court's rules and orders on case assignments. Each court has a written plan or system for assigning cases. The majority of courts use some variation of a random drawing. One simple method is to rotate the names of available judges. At times judges having special expertise can be assigned cases by type, such as complex criminal cases, asbestos-related cases, or prisoner cases. The benefit of this system is that it takes advantage of the expertise developed by judges in certain areas. Sometimes cases may be assigned based on geographical considerations. For example, in a large geographical area it may be best to assign a case to a judge located at the site where the case was filed. Courts also have a system to check if there is any conflict that would make it improper for a judge to preside over a particular case.

The complaint process is not intended to address complaints related to the merits of a case or a court's decision. Any person alleging that a judge of the United States has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or that such officer cannot discharge all the duties of the office because of physical or mental disability, may file a complaint with the clerk of the court of appeals for that circuit or applicable national court. The statute governing this complaint mechanism is set out at Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 351(a). Each circuit court of appeals web site has information about how to file a complaint in that circuit.

72nd District Court

This Page is Password Protected

Access to the contents of this page is restricted. To view the contents of the page, type the correct password and then click 'Confirm'.

• St. Clair County

Departments

• General Civil, Landlord/Tenant
• Small Claims Cases
• Civil Infractions

The 72nd District Court's jurisdiction includes traffic violations, criminal, general civil, small claims and landlord/tenant.

The 72nd District Court is dedicated to protecting rights, dispensing equal justice in all matters, and providing the highest quality of professional services in a prompt and polite manner, recognizing and respecting the dignity of each person served by the courts.

Port Huron District Court 201 McMorran Boulevard Port Huron MI, 48060 Phone: (810) 985-2072 (Traffic/Criminal) Phone: (810) 985-2077 ( General Civil/Landlord Tenant/ Small Claims ) Fax: (810) 982-1260 Port Huron District Court Email Directions The Port Huron District Court is located on the Second Floor of the Courthouse in room 2900.

Marine City District Court 2088 South Parker Marine City, MI 48039 Phone: (810) 765-4057 Fax: (810) 765-1143 Marine City District Court Email Directions

The Court accepts payments online using Visa, MasterCard and Discover.

If you have a civil judgement, do not make payment(s) to the Court. You must call the plaintiff or plaintiff attorney on your case.

Fines and Costs:

• Civil Infractions / Traffic Tickets
• Misdemeanors

For past due, suspended FAC/FCJ citations or for District Court Probation Department payments you must call the Court to obtain the exact amount needed to clear your past due, suspended and/or probation matters.

Let us know how we are doing. Public Satisfaction Survey

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

District Court Vsit report

Related Papers

Nimmi Dhami

The publication is based on1957 reported cases of child sexual abuse that went up for trial in Delhi and Mumbai.

Sotheara Yoeurng

The article describes the rights of the accused in pre-trial stage with the two different criminal justice systems of Cambodia and India.

Yar Wen Fang

sushanta das

Roshan Bajaj

ASHWIN BHARAT SINGH

opined that she was inoperable and should be treated only with medication. Thereafter the complainant and his wife consulted the respondent, who is a consulting surgeon practising for the last 40 years. In spite of being made aware of Dr Greenberg's opinion, the respondent suggested surgery to remove the uterus. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant and his wife agreed to the operation on the condition that it would be performed by the respondent. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22-12-1987 one Dr A.K. Mukherjee operated on the complainant's wife. It is the case of the prosecution that when the stomach was opened ascetic fluids oozed out of the abdomen. It is the case of the prosecution that Dr A.K. Mukherjee contacted the respondent who advised closing up the stomach. It is the case of the prosecution that Dr A.K. Mukherjee accordingly closed the stomach and this resulted in intestinal fistula. It is the case of the prosecution that whenever the complainant's wife ate or drank the same would come out of the wound. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant's wife required 20/25 dressings a day for more than 3 1/2 months in the hospital and thereafter till her death. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant's wife suffered terrible physical torture and mental agony. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent did not once examine the complainant's wife after the operation. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent claimed that the complainant's wife was not his patient. It is the case of the prosecution that the bill sent by Bombay Hospital belied the respondent's case that the complainant's wife was not his patient. The bill sent by Bombay Hospital showed the fees charged by the respondent. It is the case of the prosecution that the Maharashtra Medical Council has, in an inquiry, held the respondent guilty of negligence and strictly warned him. 5. On a complaint by the complainant a case under Section 338 read with Sections 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondent and Dr A.K. Mukherjee. Process was issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The respondent challenged the issue of process and carried the challenge right up to this Court. The special leave petitions filed by the respondent were dismissed by this Court on 8-7-1996. This Court directed the respondent to face trial. We are told that evidence of six witnesses, including that of the complainant and the investigating officer, has been recorded. 6. On 29-6-1998 the prosecution made an application to examine Dr Greenberg through video-conferencing. The trial court allowed that application on 16-8-1999. The respondent challenged that order in the High Court. The High Court has by the impugned order allowed the criminal application filed by the respondent. Hence these two appeals.

Daniela Berti

In this paper I focus on particular kinds of texts that may be found in court files on suicides and are commonly known as suicide notes, that is notes supposedly written by a person who has allegedly committed suicide and who wrote down their reason for taking their own life. Unlike most of the “voices” that emerge from a court file, which are always mediated by a legal or judicial representative—the police, the court or the lawyer—suicide notes are not supposed to undergo this legal and linguistic formatting. In fact, unlike other court documents, which in spite of being written in the first person by the witness are an official transcription of an oral statement, the content of a suicide note is supposed to have been originally produced in writing and the person referred to in the note as “I” is supposed to be the author of the note. One of the main issues raised by these notes in court is their authenticity. We are in fact dealing here with texts that appear to have been spontaneously written but whose authenticity is often challenged either by the prosecutor or by the defense lawyer—depending on what is written in the note. The interest these notes have for the anthropologist is therefore twofold. On the one hand, they provide a version of the suicide that is not directly produced by a court officer but is supposedly written by the person who committed suicide or, in the case where it has been fabricated, by the victim’s family or in-laws. On the other hand, these notes are subjected to judicial scrutiny and interpretation; therefore, whether they are real or fictional, they produce a court discourse and they sometimes even appear to have been written with the view to the judicial outcome. I will therefore look at these notes both as a lens which can give access to the deceased’s last thoughts —or to those of her entourage if the note is fabricated—and as a lens used by judges themselves to arrive at a decision

A Study of Pre-Trial and Trial Stages of Rape Prosecution in Delhi (2014-2015)

A report of a by PLD to monitor compliance with gender sensitive procedures in rape prosecutions. Conducted under the aegis of Department of Justice and the UNDP, the report draws upon trial monitoring of 16 cases of rape across 4 fast-track courts in Delhi, victim interviews, examination of case records and comparative and domestic law research. It concludes with recommendations that seek to strengthen victim centric measures to support women prosecuting rape.

Lakshmi Mohan

RELATED PAPERS

Global Disclosure of Economics and Business

Mohammed Thanvir Ahmed Chowdhury

HABIB SRIWI

Revista AIDIS de Ingeniería y Ciencias Ambientales. Investigación, desarrollo y práctica

Cleiton Silveira

Journal of Chemical & Engineering Data

Mateus Monteiro

Z A S π I N D TM

Bhabani Mallik

Journal of Behavioral Medicine

Suellen Hopfer

Journal of Advanced Health Care

Francesco Lullo

Barbara Sosič

Dale Deardorff

Justyna Glinka

Obstetrics & Gynecology

Victor Hugo Gonzalez-Quintero, MPH, MD

Journal of International Money and Finance

Emma Iglesias

abheek saha

JURNAL PERTANIAN

Desi Sembiring

Multi-Science Journal

Juliana De Oliveira Silva

Molecular Pharmacology

Tunas Geografi

Muhammad Hasan

Studies in Social Justice

Jessica Shaw

Jurnal Psikologi Islam dan Budaya

Rifky Fadillah

Perspectiva

Túlio Marcel Rufino de Vasconcelos Figueiredo

Journal of Polymer Science Part A: Polymer Chemistry

Kamal I . Aly

Luigi Federico Signorini

Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia

Alfyananda Kurnia Putra

Infectious Disorders - Drug Targets

Giulia De Angelis

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Biden to Tap Ex-US Attorney Nominee for Chicago Trial Court (1)

By Tiana Headley

The White House plans to nominate April Perry to a US district court seat in Chicago after her selection as the first female federal chief prosecutor in the city stalled in the Senate.

The announcement Wednesday comes after Perry’s nomination to the US Attorney post was blocked by Sen. JD Vance.

The Ohio Republican pledged to place holds on President Joe Biden’s Justice Department nominees to protest what he called the politically-motivated prosecution of Donald Trump.

Perry had advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on largely party lines last year.

Perry, a former line prosecutor in the Chicago US attorney’s office, has been GE Healthcare’s senior counsel of Global Investigations and Fraud and Abuse Prevention since 2022. She was previously the general counsel at Ubiety Technologies.

She would’ve filled a vacancy that opened in 2023 when Trump-era holdover John Lausch stepped down.

Also Wednesday, the White House said Biden plans to tap a slate of nominees for the Los Angeles-based Central District of California.

Anne Hwang has been a superior court judge in Los Angeles County since 2019. She’s a former chief deputy federal public defender in the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California.

Cynthia Valenzuela has been a judge on the California State Bar Court in Los Angeles since her appointment by the California Supreme Court in 2016. The administrative court rules on attorney discipline cases.

Previously, she was the Criminal Justice Act supervising attorney for the Central District of California in Los Angeles. She’s also headed national litigation at the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Michelle Williams Court has been a superior court judge in Los Angeles County since 2012, and currently supervising judge in the civil division.

Biden also announced plans to nominate his first pick for Maine’s US trial court. Stacey Neumann is a former line prosecutor in the state’s US attorney’s office. Before that, she was a staff attorney at the Vermont Office of the Defender General in Chittenden County.

For the District of Montana, Danna Jackson, who’s the Tribal Attorney for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in Pablo, Montana, is Biden’s intended pick.

She previously worked at the Interior Department as senior counselor to the director of the Bureau of Land Management, then senior counselor to the assistant secretary for water and science.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tiana Headley at [email protected]

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Seth Stern at [email protected] ; John Crawley at [email protected]

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

Judge skewers Trump defense's 'credibility' in gag order hearing ahead of 'catch and kill' testimony

Prosecutors in Donald Trump's hush money trial asserted Tuesday that the former president has been violating a gag order barring him from attacking witnesses on social media in an attempt to get locked up for political purposes.

Debate over the order, which took place in a hearing before the jury returned to the courtroom, included the judge telling a defense lawyer that he was "losing all credibility" with his argument that Trump was being "very careful to comply" with the gag order. Lawyers with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office argued that Trump should be held in criminal contempt over a series of posts on Truth Social that they say violated Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order .

“The purpose of this hearing is to find out whether the defendant Mr. Trump should be held in contempt for one or all of these violations,” Judge Juan Merchan said as the hearing began.

Prosecutor Chris Conroy said the DA's office was not yet seeking to have Trump jailed over the gag order, while adding that he "seems to be angling for that."

The judge's order prohibits Trump from publicly attacking witnesses and jurors, something prosecutors say he’s done at least 10 times since the order went into effect.

The DA’s office is seeking the maximum $1,000 fine for each of the 10 posts it says violated the order, along with an order that Trump remove the posts from his social media platform. It also wants Merchan to warn Trump any future violations risk not just additional fines but also as long as 30 days in jail.

“His disobedience of the order is willful, it’s intentional,” Conroy said. “He knows what he’s not allowed to do and he does it anyway.”

Trump attorney Todd Blanche argued “there was absolutely no willful violation” of the April 1 order and said his client was merely responding to a “barrage of political attacks.”

When Merchan pressed Blanche on what specific attacks Trump was responding to when he made the posts, the attorney struggled to answer.

“I keep asking you over and over to give me an example and I’m not getting an answer,” the judge said, appearing frustrated.

Merchan reserved a decision on the issue until a later time, but he made clear that he was not impressed by the arguments from Trump's legal team. Prosecutors, he said, had presented him with relevant case law. "You have presented nothing," the judge told Blanche.

Trump did not seem concerned during Blanche’s exchange with the judge — he sat with his eyes closed for a portion of it. He took to Truth Social immediately after the hearing to vent about the judge and Mark Pomerantz, a former prosecutor in the DA’s office. (The judge is not covered by the order.) The post questioned whether Pomerantz will be “prosecuted.”

The heated back and forth came before the jury was brought into the room to hear testimony from a key witness in case, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, who outlined the “catch and kill” scheme between himself, Trump and Michael Cohen that prosecutors say ultimately led Trump to break the law by falsifying business records. Trump has pleaded not guilty.

A 'mutually beneficial' agreement

During his opening statement Monday, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said Pecker conspired with his longtime friend Trump and Cohen , who was then Trump's lawyer, in an effort to suppress scandalous stories about Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

"They agreed that Pecker would help the defendant's campaign by acting as eyes and ears for the campaign," Colangelo said.

It was Pecker who alerted Cohen to the news that adult film star Stormy Daniels was about to come forward with a claim that she had had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, when he was married, Colangelo said. Trump has denied her claim.

Cohen ultimately paid Daniels $130,000 to get her to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Prosecutors allege that Trump falsely claimed his reimbursement to Cohen as legal payments. He’s charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, a low-level felony, and faces up to four years in prison if he’s convicted. He has pleaded not guilty.

Pecker testified Tuesday that he'd known Trump since the late 1980s and had "a great relationship with Mr. Trump over the years." He said that when he purchased the Enquirer in 1999, Trump told him: “Congratulations! You have purchased a great magazine.”

Pecker said Trump later became a source for news on his hit show "The Apprentice." He said they generally spoke every few months, but their contacts became more frequent after Trump declared he was running for president in 2015. Pecker also said he attended Trump's campaign announcement at Trump Tower after Cohen told him he should be there.

"No one deserves to be there more than you," Cohen told him in an email that was shown to the jury.

He then recounted a meeting he had at Trump Tower with Cohen and Trump in August 2015, which is when prosecutors said the election scheme was hatched. Pecker said the pair asked him what he could do to help the campaign.

"I said what I would do is I would run, or publish, positive stories about Mr. Trump, and I would publish negative stories about his opponents," Pecker recounted, adding he also told them he'd be their "eyes and ears" on stories that could be damaging.

He said he "thought that a lot of women would come out to try to sell their stories because Mr. Trump was well known as the most eligible bachelor and dated the most beautiful women. And it was clear that based on my past experience, that when someone was running for public office like this, it is very common for these women to call up magazines like the National Enquirer to try to sell their stories.”

They agreed if that happened, Pecker would notify Cohen, and "he would be able to kill" the stories, Pecker said. He called the agreement "mutually beneficial" because he thought the positive Trump stories — and negative stories about his opponents — would help the paper's newsstand sales.

He said Cohen would call and say "we would like you to run an article" on a specific target, and the Enquirer would "embellish it from there." Asked who the "we" was that Cohen referred to, Pecker said he understood it to mean Cohen and Trump. He said he would send Cohen copies of the stories before they published, and would sometimes make additions requested by Cohen.

The articles included stories about then-Trump rivals — and now allies — Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Ben Carson. The headlines included “Boozin Ted Cruz Fixin To Lose” and “Bungling Surgeon Ben Carson Left Sponge in Patient’s Brain!"

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass also asked Pecker about a notorious headline linking Cruz's father to the John F. Kennedy assassination. Pecker said the story was "created" by mashing together pictures of Cruz's father and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Cruz accused Trump of being behind the Enquirer stories at time, something Trump denied in a March 2016 statement , saying, "I have nothing to do with the National Enquirer and unlike Lyin’ Ted Cruz I do not surround myself with political hacks and henchmen and then pretend total innocence."

Catch and kill

Pecker then described the first of three stories prosecutors said he helped to kill in order to aid Trump. He said that in October of 2015, Enquirer editor Dylan Howard reached out to him — as he'd been instructed to do — with a salacious Trump story. A doorman at one of Trump's New York buildings, Dino Sajudin , was "selling a story that Donald Trump fathered an illegitimate girl with a maid in — at — at Trump Tower, and may have worked in his — in Mr. Trump’s penthouse.”

He said he "immediately" called Cohen, who didn't think the allegation was true but said he would check it out. In the meantime, Howard negotiated to buy the rights to Sajudin's story for $30,000. Pecker said he told Cohen, “I’ll pay for it. This’ll be a very big story. I believe it’s important he should be removed from the market, so we’ll acquire the story.”

The deal included a $1 million penalty if the doorman spoke about it to anyone else.

Cohen told him "the boss" was "very pleased," Pecker said, adding that he didn't discuss the plan directly with Trump — only with Cohen.

"Prior to this arrangement to purchase this story from Dino, had you ever paid a source to kill a story about Donald Trump?” Steinglass asked.

“No,” Pecker answered. He added that it was much more than the tabloid would typically pay for a story — especially since Howard hired investigators who determined the doorman's story was "absolutely 1,000% untrue."

Pecker said he eventually wanted to release the doorman from agreement because he was "difficult," but that Cohen asked him not do so until "after the election." Pecker said he agreed.

The Playboy model

Pecker recounted another tip Howard got in June of 2016 involving Karen McDougal , "a Playboy model who is trying to sell the story about a relationship that she had with Donald Trump for a year.”

Pecker said he again alerted Cohen, who told him he didn't think the claim was true. He told Cohen he'd keep him "apprised" of any developments. He said he then got a call from Trump, who said Cohen "told me about Karen." He said Trump asked him, "What do you think?" Pecker said he suggested to Trump that he buy the story, but Trump demurred and said, “I don't buy any stories." "Anytime you do anything like this, it always gets out,” he quoted Trump as saying.

Pecker said Howard arranged an interview with McDougal, and Cohen called several times while it was happening. "He kept on calling, and each time he called he seemed more anxious," Pecker said, adding that he believed but did not know that Cohen was being pressed for details by Trump.

Trump has denied McDougal's claim of an affair.

Trump's social media posts

The contempt hearing on Tuesday morning focused on prosecutors' allegation in two court filings that Trump "willfully violated" the gag order with repeated posts on Truth Social. The cited posts include one that referred to Cohen and Daniels as "sleaze bags" and others that linked to a New York Post story calling Cohen a "serial perjurer."

The partial gag order Merchan slapped on Trump this month bars him from making “public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their potential participation in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding.”

Trump's attorneys have argued that the posts didn't violate the order because he was largely sharing posts from other people and news outlets, and the posts are political speech. Asked by the judge what case law he had to support that position, Blanche said he didn't have any, but "it's just common sense."

Blanche defended one of the posts about Daniels, saying it concerned her credibility, not her anticipated testimony.

“Her credibility doesn’t matter a whole lot if she doesn’t take the stand in this trial,” Merchan said.

Conroy told the judge that Trump's use of his acronym for his campaign slogan "Make America Great Again" in some of the posts doesn't change the nature of their message.

“Throwing a ‘MAGA’ into a post doesn’t make it political. It may make it more ominous,” he said.

Trump's lawyers have also contended that the order allows Trump to defend himself from attacks, so he was within his rights to speak out because Cohen and Daniels have criticized him publicly. Merchan said last week that he doesn't believe his order makes such an exception.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office also cited comments Trump made to reporters Monday, when he repeatedly called Cohen a liar. Conroy said he’d be filing another motion on those comments later Tuesday.

Court proceedings for the day ended earlier than normal because of the Passover holiday.

As previously stated by the judge, the court will not be in session on Wednesday. The trial will resume Thursday with further testimony from Pecker.

Adam Reiss is a reporter and producer for NBC and MSNBC.

Dareh Gregorian is a politics reporter for NBC News.

Lisa Rubin is an MSNBC legal correspondent and a former litigator.