The Florida judge overseeing the case handed the former president a win.
The federal judge overseeing the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump rejected a request from federal special prosecutor Jack Smith to force the former president to reveal a portion of his legal strategy.
Several weeks ago, Mr. Smith’s team attempted to compel the former president to disclose to the prosecutors whether he intends to use an “advice-of-counsel” defense against the charges that he illegally retained and stored classified materials. It’s because, according to the special counsel, President Trump has signaled he wants to state in his case that he was merely following legal advice regarding how to deal with the classified documents post-presidency.
But on Jan. 12, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon issued a paperless order, posted to the docket, that it is too soon to request President Trump’s counsel to tell prosecutors what their plans entail.
“Assuming the facts and circumstances in this case warrant an order compelling disclosure of an advice-of-counsel trial defense, the Court determines that such a request is not amenable to proper consideration at this juncture, prior to at least partial resolution of pre-trial motions, transmission to Defendants of the Special Counsel’s exhibit and witness lists, and other disclosures as may become necessary,” her order stated. “The Special Counsel’s Motion 208 is therefore denied without prejudice.”
Without prejudice means that federal prosecutors can raise the same issue in the future. In his election-related case in Washington, President Trump has been ordered by the federal judge to disclose whether he will rely on advice-of-counsel defense by Monday.
Judge Cannon’s order comes weeks after a November motion filed by the Smith team, who wrote that the former president should disclose part of his legal strategy because, in part, he has “publicly stated he was ‘told’ he had no legal obligation to return classified documents to the Government or presidential records to the National Archives and Records Administration (‘NARA’), thereby indicating a possible defense of good faith reliance on advice of counsel.”
