WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal judge presiding over former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case has granted the defense’s request for a hearing to determine whether prosecutors violated attorney-client privilege when they obtained crucial evidence from the former lawyers for the accused.
However, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon also denied a request for a hearing on another claim by Trump’s team that the Justice Department had presented false or misleading information in its request for a warrant to search Trump’s Florida property for classified records two years ago.
The order produces a mixed result for both sides, and guarantees further delays in a criminal case that has already been stalled by lengthy adjournments that have resulted in the indefinite postponement of a trial scheduled to begin May 20 in Fort Pierce, Florida.
In an attempt to suppress as evidence classified documents seized by the FBI in the search of the Mar-a-Lago mansion on August 8, 2022, defense attorneys have said the Justice Department omitted or misrepresented certain facts in his application to obtain a court order, filed before the judge of a lower court. They said that, for example, the request should have noted that a high-ranking FBI official proposed obtaining the consent of Trump’s lawyers to conduct the search, rather than obtaining a court-authorized warrant.
But Cannon agreed with prosecutor Jack Smith’s team in determining that neither that nor any other of the alleged omissions raised by the defense had to do with whether or not the prosecution had sufficient probable cause to search the property.
“Even accepting those statements by the high-ranking FBI official, the motion does not provide a sufficient basis to believe that the inclusion in the affidavit of that official’s point of view (or the dissenting opinions of other FBI agents, as stated) generally referred to in his testimony) would have altered the calculation of evidence in support of probable cause for the alleged crimes,” Cannon wrote.
But his decision was not a complete victory for the government, as he said he would schedule a separate hearing to consider the question of whether the prosecution had improperly obtained the attorneys’ cooperation through an exception to attorney-client privilege.
