U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon presided over two hearings on May 22 regarding two of the several motions to dismiss that former President Donald Trump and codefendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira have filed in the classified documents case.
Judge Cannon noted there was a “potpourri” of criticisms about the indictment and that it could be confusing for “reasonable people” on a jury.
Both hearings ended with requests that the judge take further action beyond consideration of dismissing charges, holding an evidentiary hearing, or keeping the indictment from jurors.
Hearing Requested
The morning hearing included a heated exchange between prosecuting attorney David Harbach and the judge after defense attorney Stanley Woodward, representing Mr. Nauta, brought up allegations that prosecutors sought to pressure him to get Mr. Nauta to cooperate.
Though not detailed in Mr. Nauta’s motion to dismiss for selective and vindictive prosecution, Mr. Woodward has alleged in multiple court filings that prosecuting attorney Jay Bratt had suggested Mr. Woodward’s nomination for a judgeship could be threatened or had his chances improved if he influenced his client to cooperate against President Trump.
Mr. Woodward claimed Mr. Bratt had said he didn’t think Mr. Woodward was a “Trump lawyer” and could be counted on to do the right thing.
Judge Cannon, who was appointed to the bench by President Trump, asked prosecutors for an explanation after Mr. Harbach argued Mr. Woodward’s claims were “an absolute fantasy” and that none of it was true.
The judge said it was her job to uphold professionalism, and this did not sound professional.
When Mr. Harbach declined to share what the prosecution believes was said in the meeting, instead giving the judge evasive answers, Judge Cannon put her foot down, repeating her demand that he answer her question.
Mr. Harbach conferred with Mr. Bratt, who was in the room, and came back to explain that Mr. Woodward had taken those words out of context and stripped them of their original meaning. Prosecutors argued that if there was any animus, it would have been against Mr. Woodward and not Mr. Nauta in this case. They went so far as to argue that hypothetical misconduct would not necessarily imply selective and vindictive prosecution warranting dismissal.
Judge Cannon also pointed out that discovery applied to defendants and not counsel, and there was no legal basis for her to compel prosecutors to turn over communications about Mr. Woodward as he was requesting.
Mr. Woodward argued the prosecution’s behavior toward him was only one facet of the “campaign” to secure Mr. Nauta’s cooperation to testify against his employer in the “unprecedented” criminal prosecution of a former president.
Mr. Woodward had argued that Mr. Nauta had “capital C’ cooperated by first giving a voluntary interview with the FBI, then testifying before a grand jury, and turning over two phones pursuant to a search warrant.
Prosecutors had first pursued charges against Mr. Nauta for allegedly lying to the grand jury, and only after he declined to testify before the grand jury a second time did they charge him with obstruction, Mr. Woodward argued. He said there was no notice of the obstruction charge until Mr. Nauta received his target letter last May, and he would have negotiated differently if he knew his client was facing an obstruction charge.
Prosecutors argued the search warrant shared in November 2022 did cite an obstruction charge, and Mr. Nauta had notice.
Mr. Woodward acknowledged his motion was likely premature, and asked the judge to hold an evidentiary hearing over alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
Confusing Language in Speaking Indictment
A speaking indictment is one that includes more than just the legally required elements, instead formatted with some narrative elements. Both of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictments against President Trump are speaking indictments.
The second motion argued for the dismissal of the indictment based on insufficient pleading.
Mr. Woodward, arguing for all defendants, pointed to the later charges in the indictment that name two or three defendants in each charge. The counts often addressed different actions on the part of the named defendants, while charging them under the same statute.
Poking holes at the language of the charges individually, he argued they were duplicitous, insufficient, confusing, and prejudicial.
The judge, too, found some of the language confusing and structure unusual, asking prosecutors to explain certain items.
Prosecutors argued the indictment was “structured entirely correctly,” but could not point to other examples using a similar structure where alleged coconspirators were charged under the same count for different actions.
Judge Cannon asked why one of the charges used the term “knowingly, corruptly,” stacking two states of mind on top of each other.
Mr. Bratt offered, as an English major, the interpretation that “knowingly” modified the term “corruptly.”
The judge also asked Mr. Bratt why they repeatedly referred to Mar-a-Lago as a “club” and he said it was to counter characterizations of Mar-a-Lago as a “fortress.”
Indictments are not intended to defend against potential criticisms, Judge Cannon responded.
Mr. Bratt requested that, if the judge determined a remedy was necessary, it would be to keep the indictment away from the jurors.
Mr. Woodward argued that the prosecutors chose to use a speaking indictment and had to live with the consequences, which he believes should include dismissal of deficient charges.
From The Epoch Times
