**Judge in Trump Documents Case Grants Hearing Request on Key Indictment Evidence**
In a significant development in the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon has granted a request for a hearing to determine whether prosecutors improperly breached attorney-client privilege when they obtained crucial evidence from one of Trump’s former lawyers. This decision is expected to further delay a criminal case already beset by numerous postponements, including the indefinite cancellation of a trial initially set for May 20 in Fort Pierce, Florida.
The hearing will revisit a previous order from last year by then-chief federal judge in the District of Columbia, Beryl Howell. Judge Howell had permitted prosecutors to obtain testimony and other evidence from Trump attorney M. Evan Corcoran, which has been repeatedly cited in the indictment against Trump. The former president faces multiple felony counts, including accusations of illegally retaining classified documents from his presidency at his Mar-a-Lago estate and obstructing the FBI’s efforts to recover them. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Defense lawyers are generally protected from being forced to testify about their confidential conversations with their clients. However, this protection can be overridden if prosecutors can demonstrate that the legal services were used to further a crime, a principle known as the crime-fraud exception. Judge Howell had agreed with special counsel Jack Smith’s team that this exception applied, leading to grand jury testimony from Corcoran. Corcoran was also directed to turn over audio recordings documenting his impressions of conversations with Trump about returning the documents. These conversations are central to the indictment, including a quote where Trump allegedly suggested not cooperating with the FBI and Justice Department.
“Wouldn’t it be better if we just told them we don’t have anything here?” Corcoran quoted Trump as saying.
In her order on Thursday, 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 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 contested factual and legal issues in a pre-trial motion to suppress. Cannon asserted that it was the court’s obligation to make fresh factual findings on the crime-fraud issue.
However, Judge Cannon denied a request for a hearing on a separate claim by Trump’s team that the Justice Department had submitted false or misleading information in its application to search Mar-a-Lago. The defense argued that the application should have noted that a senior FBI official had proposed seeking the consent of Trump’s lawyers for a search rather than obtaining a court-authorized search warrant. Cannon sided with the Smith team, finding that neither this 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.
The decision to reopen litigation over the crime-fraud exception follows a sealed hearing on Tuesday in federal district court in Fort Pierce, Florida. During this hearing, Trump’s lawyers argued that the crime-fraud exception should not have been applied at all. Prosecutors objected, stating that an evidentiary hearing to re-examine the memos would be akin to a “mini-trial.” Cannon, however, dismissed this argument, noting the difference between a resource-wasting “mini-trial” and a hearing aimed at resolving contested factual and legal issues.
The crime-fraud exception to the memos was initially decided by Judge Howell and upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in March 2022 after Trump and Corcoran challenged the ruling. Last Friday, Cannon held a hearing to consider whether special counsel Jack Smith had been unlawfully appointed, despite multiple federal courts affirming the attorney general’s authority to appoint special prosecutors.
While Cannon’s latest ruling denied a request by Trump to suppress the classified documents seized at Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 over alleged deficiencies with the warrant, she allowed a narrower legal challenge to the search to continue. Cannon wrote that she wanted to explore further whether the FBI agents who executed the search warrant had been given definitions of terms like “presidential records” or “national defense information” in identifying what the warrant authorized them to seize.
The case against Trump is one of four criminal indictments he is currently facing. In New York, he is scheduled to go on trial in late March for allegedly falsifying business records in 2016 to conceal details of a sexual liaison with an adult-film star. In Washington, he awaits trial on charges of conspiring to obstruct the results of the 2020 election. In Georgia, he has been charged in a sprawling conspiracy to obstruct the election results. Trump has pleaded not guilty in all four cases.
In a related ruling on Wednesday, Cannon rejected Trump’s arguments for his lawyers to see more of the classified filings submitted by prosecutors. She concluded that the access sought by Trump’s team was not typically granted in such cases and that withholding the information would not hamper his defense. Cannon plans to hold a key hearing in the case on Friday to discuss the trial schedule, evidence disputes, and a related disagreement over proposed redactions to court documents.
Cannon’s rulings underscore the complexity and high stakes of the case, which involves the unprecedented prosecution of a former U.S. president for allegedly mishandling classified documents. The upcoming hearing on the crime-fraud exception will be crucial in determining the admissibility of key evidence that could significantly impact the outcome of the trial.
Source: Associated Press, The Guardian, The Washington Post
