The federal judge in Donald Trump’s classified records case has denied the former president’s effort to have the charges dismissed.
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon denied Trump’s motion to have the case tossed based on privileges granted by the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978.
In a 3-page ruling issued on Thursday, Cannon noted that the counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment “make no reference to the Presidential Records Act, nor do they rely on that statute for purposes of stating and offense.”
“The Presidential Records Act does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss,” she concluded.
The ruling arrives after Smith’s April 2 request for Cannon to deny the former president’s claim that the PRA permitted him to designate national security records as his own personal property.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filing, which Smith submitted just before the midnight deadline on Tuesday, garnered attention for exhibiting a frustrated tone some perceived to be combative.
The prosecution said Cannon’s directive to both sides to present jury instructions that take into consideration Trump’s view of the PRA was “fundamentally flawed.”
“The jury instructions would amount to nothing more than a recitation of Trump’s PRA defense as presented in his motion to dismiss and would result in directing a verdict against the Government,” the filing states.
Lawfare senior editor Roger Parloff referred to the filing as “blistering.”
“Jack tells her she ‘must’ rule ‘promptly’ so he can weigh appellate options,” he said. In Jack Smith’s blistering filing yesterday on Judge Cannon’s aberrant proposed jury instructions, Jack tells her she “must” rule “promptly” so he can weigh appellate options. Here’s my @lawfare inquiry from last week into those options ...
1/3https://t.co/8AFwouHKqF
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) April 3, 2024
Former federal prosecutor Shanlon Wu said the “extraordinary late night filing … sets forth how Judge Aileen Cannon could doom the prosecution.” Extraordinary late night filing by Special Counsel Smith sets forth how Judge Aileen Cannon could doom the prosecution by delaying ruling on her legally flawed jury instructions until after the trial starts (when Double Jeopardy attaches) thus depriving prosecution of any ability… https://t.co/BladpHhUNo pic.twitter.com/QgSRaG1Vs4
— Shanlon Wu (@shanlonwu) April 3, 2024
“Legal observers were baffled by Cannon’s recent instructions, asking both sides to weigh two scenarios that largely embraced Trump’s view of the PRA despite having failed to consider an earlier motion from him seeking to toss the case on those grounds,” The Hill reports, noting the indecision on this issue and other motions has created a backlog in the case.
“It’s unusual for prosecutors to be so direct in countering a judge’s directions, but numerous lines in the filing suggested impatience with the slow pace of the proceedings,” the outlet added.
Author and commentator Julie Kelly wrote on X that Smith’s filing made it “clear that the gloves are off btw DOJ and Judge Cannon.”
“Jack Smith's response is hysterical (and not in a funny way in a desperate way) bc he knows he has little control over her decision related to final jury instructions,” she added. “This is why Smith is so angry--he knows if Cannon proceeds with the proposed scenario presented in her jury instructions order, he is, as one defense attorney told me at the time, f*cked.” Jack Smith's response is hysterical (and not in a funny way in a desperate way) bc he knows he has little control over her decision related to final jury instructions.
And he is arguing the basis for Trump's "unauthorized possession" of national defense material rests on Obama… pic.twitter.com/uVr0qxy8ex
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) April 3, 2024
In addition to denying Trump’s motion for dismissal, Cannon said Smith’s “demand” for final jury instructions prior to trial and presentation of evidence was “unprecedented and unjust.”
“The Court’s Order … should not be … interpretated as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt … to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression,” she wrote.
The Guardian reports that the question of whether or not Trump was authorized under the PRA to deem any White House document a personal record is vital to the case: Trump was indicted for unlawfully retaining national security materials under the Espionage Act. If Trump could show that he was somehow authorized to keep the documents at Mar-a-Lago, it would preclude his prosecution. Even more crucial is if Cannon actually uses such instructions at trial, because if that happens after the jury is sworn in, double jeopardy protections for Trump would kick in. If Trump is then acquitted, prosecutors would not be allowed to retry the case.
“The judge still has not decided on a trial date, which was originally scheduled for May 20, and several other motions remain to be decided,” Courthouse News reports.
