Judge Slates Hearing on Trump Co-Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss

Walt Nauta, former President Donald Trump's valet, visits the Versailles restaurant with President Trump in Miami on June 13, 2023. Alex Brandon/AP Photo

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has ordered a hearing for April 12 on motions to dismiss filed by Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, who were charged as codefendants of former President Donald Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents.

Mr. Nauta, valet to President Trump, was charged alongside the former president in June 2023 on six counts related to concealing classified documents. Mr. de Oliveira, property manager for Mar-a-Lago, was added as a codefendant more than a month later and accused of helping delete security footage of boxes of classified documents being moved.

Both parties have pleaded not guilty. The new hearing will cover Mr. de Oliveira’s motion to dismiss the indictment or for a bill of particulars, Mr. Nauta’s motion for a bill of particulars, and Mr. Nauta’s motion to dismiss for failure to state an offense.

The hearing comes on the heels of Judge Cannon recently denying two of President Trump’s four motions to dismiss after hearing oral arguments. She rejected President Trump’s motion to dismiss charges based on unconstitutional vagueness and under the Presidential Records Act.

However, the judge left the door open for President Trump to make arguments using the Presidential Records Act in the jury instruction stage, and special counsel Jack Smith blasted the judge for not stating outright whether she would accept those arguments in an order that he could appeal.

Vagueness?

Lawyers for Mr. Nauta and Mr. de Oliveira claim that the prosecutors have not made clear what laws the defendants have violated.

They argued that the conduct alleged in the indictment fails to present a “plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts” related to their charges as required by law.

The defendants have argued for dismissal, acquittal, or a bill of particulars from the prosecutors that would specify each charge.

Mr. de Oliveira has repeatedly claimed that he didn’t know the contents of any boxes of documents he moved in Mar-a-Lago, and defense attorneys argued that he therefore cannot be charged with conspiracy to conceal this information.

Mr. Nauta’s motion to dismiss for vagueness or for a bill of particulars was undocketed, presumably because, like several other court filings in the case, it was sealed because of classified information.

Prosecutors argued that no bill of particulars is necessary as the indictment provides sufficient detail. They asserted that the request is a “thinly veiled attempt to get the Government to disclose its trial strategy and detail the evidence it intends to present.”

They argued that the government has already provided “extensive discovery” including Mar-a-Lago surveillance footage, communications, grand jury transcripts, and photographs of the alleged crimes and that each defendant has “all of the details to which he is entitled.”

The judge is expected to ask what specific information the defendants are requesting and for any basis on which the prosecutors are not required to produce it.

Speedy Trial Clock Ticking

The co-defendants had also demanded a speedy trial, which would start on May 20 or 70 days after that at the latest, or else the case must be resolved without trial.

In the defense’s latest speedy trial report, filed on April 5, they argued that numerous pretrial motions are still before the court, including a major one aimed at obtaining more evidence from prosecutors.

Even if the court promptly denied the motions, the defense still has 682,000 records to go through. They argue that this is so voluminous and complex that it is “unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself” under speedy trial statutes.

“The gravity of this prosecution cannot be understated,” the defense argued. “As the stakeholders to this litigation wrestle with both novel and profound legal issues of utmost importance, it should be incumbent upon all to assure that the pursuit of justice remains paramount.”

Judge Cannon has received criticism from left-leaning commentators for causing what they claim is a delay to the trial after the special counsel lodged scathing criticism of the judge in a court filing that argued she was wrong on the law.

The judge has not yet decided whether the parties will be allowed to argue that President Trump had designated the documents in his possession “personal” under the Presidential Records Act. This would call into question whether he was unauthorized to have those documents, as the indictment alleges.

If the judge were to rule one way or another, the parties could seek an appellate review of her decision. Prosecutors claimed that she was injecting “substantial delay into trial,” blocking their ability to go to the appeal court.

Judge Cannon pushed back in a recent order rejecting President Trump’s motion to dismiss based on the Presidential Records Act.

She said a request that the court make final jury instructions before a charging conference had been held was “unprecedented and unjust,” inviting each party to “avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke, as permitted by law.”

The judge still has to rule on two motions to dismiss filed by President Trump. One is based on presidential immunity, a defense the Supreme Court will hear in oral arguments on April 25, and the other is on selective and vindictive prosecution, to which the judge seemed receptive during a March hearing.