[ad_1]
- Judge Eileen Cannon ruled this week that the list of witnesses in Trump’s document suit should be made public.
- Special Counsel Jack Smith is fighting back against efforts to release the protected list.
- Legal experts said BI Canon’s ruling was contrary to precedent and would likely be overturned on appeal.
Trump-appointed judge Eileen Cannon again sided with the former president’s defense team this week, ruling that the government’s witness list in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case should be made public. Ta.
Cannon wrote in Tuesday’s filing that the public interest in the case outweighs the current protection order that keeps the names secret, and that the special prosecutor has a strong enough argument to keep the names secret. I wrote that I did not present it.
Special Prosecutor Jack Smith pushed back on Cannon’s ruling on Thursday, filing a motion for reconsideration and reconsidering the names already known to the defense, citing safety concerns and potential impact on the investigation. He claimed to be refraining from releasing the film. He wrote that by potentially preventing witnesses from further cooperating with the investigation, “the court would be applying the wrong legal standard and would in fact be exposing witnesses and others to intolerable and unnecessary risk.” Ta.
As former President Trump’s legal battle unfolds, multiple people, including witnesses and judges involved in the numerous civil and criminal cases against him, are facing serious threats and harassment.
The former president’s supporters are accused of threatening violence against Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Georgia’s ongoing federal election interference case, and the jurors who voted to indict him in the case. He’s even been prosecuted.
Judge Cannon’s move to release the list of witnesses in the classified documents case against Trump has drawn harsh criticism from many in the legal community, with two experts telling Business Insider that the judge’s decision will be overturned on appeal. He said it was highly likely.
“Clear bias against Trump”
Former federal prosecutor Neema Rahmani told BI that the move was “another erroneous ruling by Judge Cannon.”
“It’s really one case after another, and the way she handled this case shows her clear bias against Mr. Trump and his defense team,” Rahmani said. “Obviously Mr. Trump appointed her, but it couldn’t have been a better tie. In fact, at every stage of the trial so far, she has allowed Mr. Trump to delay. So if the trial is 11 There’s little chance of it happening before the elections in January.” And of course, if Trump were to win and take back control of the White House, there would be no prosecutors. ”
Cannon’s case has already been reversed once by the 11th Circuit, which moved to appoint a special commissioner to oversee the review of classified documents seized from Mar-a-Lago. The Eleventh Circuit sided with the Justice Department, ultimately holding that Cannon did not have the authority to assign a special judge to the case.
“This is the second time Jack Smith has asked for a review of the artillery order. And last time, he ultimately appealed to the 11th Circuit, which sided with Smith and gave Cannon a ‘slap on the bench,'” legal analyst and New York litigator Andrew Reeve told BI. Told.
Mr. Reeve further stated that there was no legal reason to release the list of witnesses or their statements, and that it would “put witnesses at risk, potentially leading them to refuse further testimony out of fear or to change their testimony, which is exactly what sealing the case would do.” That’s why,” he added. , which could influence potential jurors. ”
Precedents for protective orders
Rahmani said that the list of witnesses will eventually be made public, but the timing and method of releasing the information is important. Preemptively disclosing the names of cooperating witnesses, not all of whom will testify, goes against historical precedent that erroneously protects people who cooperate in criminal investigations.
“Protection orders exist for a reason, and the government has made clear that they would impede investigations and endanger witnesses,” Rahmani said, adding that the 11th Circuit followed existing precedent. He added that he believed the Cannon decision would be reversed based on this.
He added: “I think the motion for reconsideration will probably be denied because I think judges rarely reconsider their decisions — it’s pretty rare for a judge to change their mind. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Eleventh Circuit overturned Cannon.” ”
[ad_2]
Source link
