**Judge in Trump Case Denies Hearing Request to Challenge Classified Docs Search**
WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal judge overseeing the classified documents case involving former President Donald Trump has granted his request for a hearing to determine whether prosecutors improperly breached attorney-client privilege when they obtained crucial evidence from one of his former lawyers. This decision by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ensures further delays in a criminal case already plagued by significant postponements, leading to the indefinite cancellation of the trial date initially set for May 20 in Fort Pierce, Florida.
Judge Cannon’s order means she will revisit a previous ruling by another judge that allowed prosecutors to obtain testimony and other evidence from a Trump attorney, which has been repeatedly cited in the indictment against the former president. Trump faces numerous felony counts, accusing him of illegally hoarding classified documents from his presidency at his Mar-a-Lago estate and obstructing the FBI’s efforts to recover them. He has pleaded not guilty.
Defense lawyers are typically protected from being forced to testify about their confidential conversations with their clients. However, they can be compelled to do so if prosecutors can demonstrate that their legal services were used to further a crime, a principle known as the crime-fraud exception.
Last year, then-chief federal judge in the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, agreed with special counsel Jack Smith’s team that the crime-fraud exception applied. She ordered grand jury testimony from Trump attorney M. Evan Corcoran, who represented the former president when the FBI searched Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022, and seized boxes of classified records.
Judge Howell also directed Corcoran to turn over audio recordings he made, documenting his impressions of conversations with Trump about returning the documents. These conversations form the basis of key portions of the indictment, including a quote in which Trump suggested not cooperating with the FBI and Justice Department as they sought the return of classified documents he took with him to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House.
“Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” Corcoran quoted Trump as saying.
In her order, Judge Cannon stated there was “nothing unduly prejudicial or legally erroneous about Defendant Trump’s fact-development request,” even as she sought to address the Smith team’s concerns that the hearing could turn into a “mini-trial.” She emphasized the difference between a resource-wasting and delay-producing “mini-trial” and an evidentiary hearing aimed at adjudicating the contested factual and legal issues on a pre-trial motion to suppress.
Cannon asserted it was “the obligation of this Court to make factual findings afresh on the crime-fraud issue.” However, she denied a request for a hearing on a separate Trump team claim that the Justice Department had submitted false or misleading information in an application to search Mar-a-Lago. The defense argued that the application should have noted that a senior FBI official proposed seeking the consent of Trump’s lawyers for a search rather than obtaining a court-authorized search warrant.
Judge Cannon sided with the Smith team, finding that neither that nor any other alleged omissions raised by the defense had any bearing on whether prosecutors had sufficient probable cause to search the property. She had signaled this position during a hearing earlier in the week.
“Even accepting those statements by the high-level FBI official, the Motion offers an insufficient basis to believe that inclusion in the affidavit of that official’s perspective (or of the dissenting views of other FBI agents as referenced generally in his testimony) would have altered the evidentiary calculus in support of probable cause for the alleged offenses,” Cannon wrote.
The judge’s decision to grant a hearing on the attorney-client privilege issue but deny the request related to the search warrant application represents a mixed result for both sides. It ensures further delays in a criminal case already entangled in significant postponements.
In a bid to suppress the classified documents seized by the FBI during the August 8, 2022, Mar-a-Lago search, defense lawyers argued that the Justice Department omitted or misrepresented certain facts in its application to a magistrate judge to obtain a warrant. They contended that the application should have noted that a senior FBI official proposed seeking the consent of Trump’s lawyers for a search rather than obtaining a court-authorized search warrant.
However, Judge Cannon sided with special counsel Jack Smith’s team, finding that neither that nor any other alleged omissions raised by the defense had any bearing on whether prosecutors had sufficient probable cause to search the property.
“Even accepting those statements by the high-level FBI official, the Motion offers an insufficient basis to believe that inclusion in the affidavit of that official’s perspective (or of the dissenting views of other FBI agents as referenced generally in his testimony) would have altered the evidentiary calculus in support of probable cause for the alleged offenses,” Cannon wrote.
Despite this, her order was not a complete win for the government. She stated she would schedule a separate hearing to consider whether prosecutors had improperly obtained the cooperation of Trump’s lawyers through an exception to attorney-client privilege.
Defense lawyers are generally shielded from being forced to testify about their confidential conversations with their clients. However, they can be compelled to do so if prosecutors can show that their legal services were used to further a crime, a principle known as the crime-fraud exception.
Judge Howell had agreed with Smith’s team that the exception applied and ordered grand jury testimony from two of Trump’s lawyers. She also directed one of his lawyers, M. Evan Corcoran, to turn over audio recordings that documented his impressions of conversations with Trump about returning the documents. These conversations are repeatedly cited in the indictment and held up by prosecutors as incriminating evidence.
“It is the obligation of this Court to make factual findings afresh on the crime-fraud issue,” Cannon wrote. “And 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).”
Source: Associated Press
