Attorneys for former President Trump are arguing that some evidence was improperly obtained and therefore cannot be used at trial.
Judge Cannon ruled the defense did not substantially show this was the case, and denied their request for an additional hearing on the matter.
Defense attorneys had argued that the agents searching Mar-a-Lago were given no guidelines, resulting in a “rummaging” of the 17-acre property and a search for documents that extended to the former first lady’s and Barron Trump’s rooms. Prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith’s office argued the agents had conducted themselves properly and professionally.
The Trump attorneys also requested an evidentiary hearing, which may allow them to compel testimony from members of the special counsel’s team who led the grand jury in the District of Columbia.
In the new order, Judge Cannon sided with the defense in finding such a hearing necessary, writing that she would set a date in a separate order.
The judge noted that the special counsel “vigorously opposes” additional fact finding on these issues but “the Court cannot agree.”
Ambiguities in Search Warrant
Prosecutors argued there was no ambiguity in the search warrant, which directed agents to identify documents with “classification markings,” “national defense information,” and “Presidential Records.”Judge Cannon agreed that classified markings were not ambiguous, but found that “national defense information” and “Presidential Records” were ambiguous enough that agents wouldn’t have been able to know what was “seizable” property without further clarification.
“Further factual development is warranted,” the order reads.
On June 25, parties also argued about grand jury proceedings that led to former President Trump’s indictment. The hearing was sealed and not open to the public.
Attorneys for former President Trump have alleged his attorney-client privilege was unlawfully violated during these proceedings, and that evidence from the relevant testimony cannot be used.
Judge Cannon wrote that it was her obligation to make factual findings on the defendant’s motion.
“A standard means by which to make such findings—as is customary in criminal suppression litigation—is following an evidentiary hearing at which both sides can present evidence (documentary and testimonial, as applicable),” the order reads.
The judge wrote that the defendant’s right to this fact-finding outweighed the prosecutors’ wish to avoid cross-examination of its trial witnesses during an evidentiary hearing.
Prosecutors opposed the requested hearing, arguing it would result in a “mini trial” with targeted witnesses on the stand for the defense to question.
Judge Cannon pushed back, writing “there is a difference between a resource-wasting and delay-producing ’mini-trial'” and the obligatory fact-finding associated with the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.
She assured the parties they would be involved in setting the scope and timing of the hearing before she scheduled one, and prosecutors would be able to request “reasonable limitations” for the hearing.
