**Judge in Trump Classified Docs Case Denies Defense’s Request to Challenge Warrant**
WASHINGTON — The federal judge overseeing the classified documents case involving former President Donald Trump has granted a defense request for a hearing on whether prosecutors improperly breached attorney-client privilege. However, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon denied a separate request from Trump’s legal team to challenge the validity of the search warrant used to obtain classified documents from his Mar-a-Lago estate.
The decision by Judge Cannon introduces further delays in a case already marked by significant postponements. The trial, initially set for May 20 in Fort Pierce, Florida, has been indefinitely postponed.
### Attorney-Client Privilege and Crime-Fraud Exception
The core of the defense’s argument revolves around the crime-fraud exception, a legal doctrine that allows prosecutors to compel testimony from defense lawyers if they can demonstrate that the legal services were used to further a crime. Last year, then-chief federal judge in the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell, agreed with special counsel Jack Smith’s team that this exception applied. Judge Howell ordered grand jury testimony from Trump attorney M. Evan Corcoran, who represented Trump during the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago on August 8, 2022.
Corcoran was also directed to turn over audio recordings documenting his conversations with Trump about returning the classified documents. These recordings are cited multiple times in the indictment, including a quote where Trump allegedly suggested not cooperating with the FBI and the Justice Department.
### Judge Cannon’s Ruling
In her order, Judge Cannon stated that there was “nothing unduly prejudicial or legally erroneous about Defendant Trump’s fact-development request,” even as she sought to address concerns from Smith’s team that the hearing could turn into a “mini-trial.”
“There is a difference between a resource-wasting and delay-producing ‘mini-trial,’ on the one hand, and an evidentiary hearing geared to adjudicating the contested factual and legal issues on a given pre-trial motion to suppress, on the other,” Cannon wrote. She emphasized that it was “the obligation of this Court to make factual findings afresh on the crime-fraud issue.”
### Denial of Warrant Challenge
On the other hand, Judge Cannon denied the Trump team’s request for a hearing to argue that the Justice Department had submitted false or misleading information in its application for the search warrant. The defense claimed that the application should have included a senior FBI official’s suggestion to seek the consent of Trump’s lawyers for a search rather than obtaining a court-authorized warrant.
Cannon sided with Smith’s team, stating that the alleged omissions did not affect the probable cause needed 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,” she wrote.
### Implications for the Case
The mixed ruling ensures that the case will continue to face delays. The hearing on the crime-fraud exception will require both sides to present evidence, including documentary and testimonial evidence, to determine whether prosecutors improperly obtained the cooperation of Trump’s lawyers.
The case has already been complicated by multiple postponements, and this latest development adds another layer of complexity. Trump faces dozens of felony counts accusing him of illegally hoarding classified documents from his presidency and obstructing the FBI’s efforts to recover them. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
### Background and Context
The investigation into Trump’s handling of classified documents began after he left the White House in January 2021. The FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 resulted in the seizure of boxes of classified records. The Justice Department has argued that Trump and his legal team obstructed efforts to recover these documents, leading to the current criminal case.
The crime-fraud exception has been a focal point in the investigation. Defense lawyers are generally protected from being forced to testify about their confidential conversations with clients. However, this protection can be overridden if prosecutors can show that the legal services were used to further a crime.
Judge Howell’s decision last year to apply the crime-fraud exception and compel testimony from Corcoran was a significant development in the case. Corcoran’s audio recordings, which document his conversations with Trump, have been used as key evidence in the indictment.
### Conclusion
Judge Cannon’s decision to grant a hearing on the crime-fraud exception while denying the challenge to the search warrant represents a mixed outcome for both sides. The ruling ensures that the case will continue to face delays, adding to the already complex legal proceedings.
As the case moves forward, the upcoming hearing on the crime-fraud exception will be crucial in determining the admissibility of key evidence obtained from Trump’s legal team. The outcome of this hearing could have significant implications for the overall case against the former president.
Source: Associated Press
