Judge Aileen Cannon on Thursday rejected former President Trump’s claims that authorities misled the court into searching Mar-a-Lago, but kept alive other proposals from the former president that sought to limit the use of evidence. important, scheduling additional hearings in the dragged-out case. .
Cannon rejected Trump’s request for a “Franks hearing” to review whether prosecutors made any false statements or omissions in drafting the warrant, ruling that Trump did not meet the requirements for further examination.
While Cannon’s decision negates an effort by Trump to remove most of the evidence collected at his home, she said more hearings would be needed to evaluate two of the former president’s other arguments.
That includes a challenge to another provision of the warrant and a request that she re-examine a ruling that stripped a former Trump lawyer of attorney-client privilege and allowed prosecutors access to some of his files.
Cannon dismissed concerns about future hearings from special counsel Jack Smith’s team, writing that it would not “turn into a ‘mini trial.'”
“There is a difference between a “mini-trial” that wastes resources and produces delays, on the one hand, and an evidentiary hearing aimed at adjudicating the factual and legal issues contested in a given pretrial motion to suppress, on the other hand. another,” Cannon wrote.
While the decision will be made quickly after three days of hearings that ended earlier this week, the additional hearings ordered by Cannon add to more time spent on the mounting unresolved issues she faces.
Last March, an appeals court ordered Trump’s then-attorney, Evan Corcoran, to testify before the grand jury examining Trump’s misuse of confidential records. The ruling violated attorney-client privilege — a rare measure allowed when a judge rules that a lawyer’s services were used in furtherance of a crime.
Corcoran provided key evidence for the later indictment accusing Trump of obstruction of justice. It was Corcoran who reported that Trump asked him to “pull out” certain confidential records when he was preparing to turn over confidential records in response to a subpoena. The indictment also alleges that Trump moved boxes to hide them from Corcoran.
In doing so, Cannon wrote that “it is this Court’s obligation to make new factual findings on the issue of criminal fraud,” including weighing Trump’s contention that Corcoran was involved in criminal activity.
Cannon also said more hearings are needed to evaluate Trump’s challenge to a part of the warrant that sets out instructions to search his home, directing law enforcement agents on what property to seize.
Cannon suggested that the instructions for obtaining “presidential records” and “national defense information” may not have been clear. The Espionage Law prohibits the improper treatment of national defense information, which covers confidential records, as well as any other information important to national defense.
Both terms, Cannon wrote, “carry no ‘generally understood meaning.'[s]’ in such a way that a law enforcement agent, without further clarification, would know how to identify such material as ‘seizable’ property.”
Former court officials and legal observers have become increasingly vocal in recent weeks with their concerns about Cannon’s handling of the case.
Most of this criticism centered on the numerous delays in the trial, highlighted by Cannon’s failure to quickly resolve motions filed by Trump seeking to dismiss the case.
Cannon indefinitely postponed Trump’s trial in May, ruling that it would not be appropriate to set a trial date until she had weighed the other legal issues before her.
Updated at 2:03 p.m. ET
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
