WASHINGTON (AP) — The judge overseeing the case of former President Donald Trump's classified documents in Florida has been criticized by federal prosecutors. former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case In Florida, federal prosecutors have cautioned the judge against potential jury instructions that they believe are based on a 'fundamentally flawed legal premise.'
In a rare move, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon asked prosecutors and defense lawyers to submit proposed jury instructions for most charges, despite the uncertain trial timeline, and to address conflicting interpretations of the law related to the Presidential Records Act, which the former president argues entitles him to retain the sensitive documents he is accused of possessing. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon requested proposed jury instructions from prosecutors and defense attorneys for the majority of the charges in the case, despite the trial timeline being unclear. She sought input on opposing interpretations of the law that seemed to support the former president's claim that he had the right, under the Presidential Records Act, to keep the sensitive documents he is alleged to have. the Presidential Records Act known as to keep the sensitive documents he is now charged with possessing.
The unexpected decision surprised legal experts and worried special counsel Jack Smith's team, who emphasized in a filing on Tuesday that the 1978 law requiring presidents to return presidential records to the government upon leaving office, but allowing them to keep purely personal ones, does not apply to a case involving highly classified documents. special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which said in a filing late Tuesday that the 1978 law — which requires presidents to return presidential records to the government upon leaving office but permits them to retain purely personal ones — has no relevance in a case concerning highly classified documents.
The prosecutors argued that these documents were clearly not personal, and there is no evidence that Trump ever designated them as such. They stated that the suggestion he did so was 'invented' only after it became public that he had taken boxes of records from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, after his presidency. They also noted that none of the witnesses they interviewed supported his argument.
The prosecutors wrote that not a single witness had heard Trump state that he was designating records as personal or believed that transferring the boxes to Mar-a-Lago constituted such a designation under the PRA. They added that every witness asked about this had never heard of such a thing.
Smith’s team stated that if the judge insists on referring to the presidential records law in the jury instructions, she should inform the lawyers promptly so they can appeal.
The filing reflects the ongoing frustration of the prosecutors with Cannon's handling of the case.
The judge appointed by Trump has not yet ruled on several defense motions to dismiss the case, and other disagreements between the two sides. The trial date remains uncertain, indicating that the prosecution, which Smith's team has described as having overwhelming evidence, may remain unresolved by the time of the November presidential election. multiple defense motions to dismiss the case as well as other disagreements between the two sides, and the trial date remains in flux, suggesting that a prosecution that Smith’s team has said features overwhelming evidence could remain unresolved by the time of the November presidential election.
Cannon, who earlier faced blistering criticism over her decision to grant Trump’s request for an independent arbiter to review documents obtained during an FBI search of Mar-a-Lago, heard arguments last month on two of Trump’s motions to dismiss the case: that the Presidential Records Act permitted him to designate the documents as personal and that he was therefore permitted to retain them.
The judge appeared skeptical of that position but did not immediately rule. Days later, she asked the two sides to craft jury instructions that responded to the following premise: 'A president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision.'
The outgoing president's decision to not give back personal records to the government shows that the president thinks those records are personal under the PRA.
Prosecutors said that understanding of the law is incorrect. They also asked Cannon to quickly reject the defense motion to dismiss.
The difference between personal and presidential records under the PRA does not determine if a former President having documents with national defense information is allowed under the Espionage Act. The PRA should not have any influence on the jury instructions for Section 793, which is the law against illegally keeping national defense information.
Based on the current record, the PRA should not be involved in the trial at all,
Trump, the expected Republican nominee for 2024, is facing numerous serious charges related to mishandling classified documents. He is accused of improperly sharing a Pentagon “plan of attack” and a classified map related to a military operation. The Florida case is one of four criminal cases against the former president.He has claimed he did nothing wrong in any of them.
