Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
(Paul Fraughton | The Salt Lake Tribune) Jeremy Johnson — shown here leaving the federal courthouse in Salt Lake City on Friday, Jan. 11, 2013, after a plea agreement unraveled — is fighting government attempts to muzzle him.
Attempt to muzzle Jeremy Johnson too broad, his attorney argues
Speech » Lawyer says government’s motion could hinder others’ rights.
First Published Feb 26 2013 04:41 pm • Last Updated May 20 2013 10:05 pm

The federal government’s proposed gag order against Jeremy Johnson, his friends and his associates is too broad, his attorney argued Tuesday, but if it is enacted, it should apply to prosecutors, too.

Ron Yengich, who represents the indicted St. George businessman, said while he agreed not to make public statements that could substantially affect court proceedings, the government’s request is so sweeping it could hinder the constitutional rights of others who post information about the case on the Internet.

Photos
At a glance

The Swallow case

Indicted St. George businessman Jeremy Johnson has alleged that Utah’s new attorney general, John Swallow, helped broker payoffs to enlist the aid of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in derailing a Federal Trade Commission investigation of Johnson’s I Works business. Swallow and Reid deny the allegations. The U.S. Attorney’s Office is investigating.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

In a federal court filing Tuesday, Yengich wrote that "including in such an order all of Johnson’s affiliates and potential witnesses serves to invalidate the order as unconstitutionally broad."

The defense lawyer also said any gag order should extend to the U.S. Attorney’s Office as well. He cited statements made by former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman and former federal Judge Paul Cassell, who he implied were speaking on behalf of prosecutors during interviews for news stories.

Prosecutors filed a gag motion last month that said Johnson was "engaged in an ongoing media campaign against the United States Attorney’s Office and, in particular, against lead prosecutor Brent Ward, all apparently in an effort to litigate his case publicly rather than in the courtroom."

Johnson faces a felony wire-fraud charge that stems from an investigation by the Federal Trade Commission into his I Works company. A 2010 FTC lawsuit accused Johnson and others of running an illegal online sales operation that led to millions of dollars of unauthorized charges on consumers’ credit and debit cards.

Prosecutors said more criminal charges would be forthcoming after a plea bargain fell through in which Johnson was to admit guilt to two additional allegations and accept an 11-year prison term.

That deal unraveled when Johnson and prosecutors could not agree to put in the court record a list of people that the defendant said prosecutors had promised not to indict if he pleaded guilty. For months, Johnson has been waging a campaign on YouTube, through websites, social media and in interviews in which he alleges government misconduct in his criminal case — including threats to indict his family — and in the FTC lawsuit that is being heard in Las Vegas.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Warner has granted permission for the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to file a brief opposing the gag motion.

Executive Director Kent Hart said the main issue is whether the potential jury pool in a Johnson trial could be tainted by his media blitz.


story continues below
story continues below

Hart pointed to the extensive publicity before the trial in the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart in which prosecutors argued the jury pool was so large a panel could be seated who had not been biased by the extensive publicity in that case.

"It seems now that Mr. Johnson has been speaking publicly and saying things prosecutors object to, now they are saying the jury pool could be affected," Hart said. "That seems a bit unfair."

Yengich did not return a phone call seeking further comment on the case. The U.S. Attorney’s Office also declined to comment.

Oral arguments on the motion are scheduled for March 12 before Warner in Salt Lake City’s federal court.

tharvey@sltrib.com

Twitter: @TomHarveySltrib



Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Login to the Electronic Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.