Former President Donald Trump’s legal team is proposing narrower rules for the use of evidence in the criminal election interference case, in contrast to the more restrictive rules proposed by prosecutors. Trump’s lawyers argue that the special counsel prosecutors are politically motivated and are seeking to restrict his First Amendment rights.
The disagreement between prosecutors and Trump’s lawyers over the protective order highlights their disagreement over the granular details of the case. The special counsel’s office has filed complaints about Trump’s attorney’s statements on TV networks and a social media post by Trump, further intensifying the dispute.
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan plans to hold a hearing this week to resolve the dispute over what restrictions should be imposed. The Justice Department has not requested special protections over records already in possession of Trump’s team or publicly available information.
While Trump’s lawyers acknowledge the need to keep certain evidence private, they argue against a blanket gag order. They propose limiting the protective order to genuinely sensitive materials. Additionally, Trump is seeking changes to the prosecutors’ proposal, including narrowing the definition of “sensitive” discovery materials and expanding access to evidentiary materials.
In response, prosecutors argue that expanding access as Trump suggests could potentially allow co-conspirators access to the discovery, undermining the integrity of the case. Trump’s lawyers also recommend changes to procedures for handling non-public evidence during pre-trial proceedings and trial.
Protective orders in criminal cases are sought by prosecutors to prevent defendants from speaking publicly about sensitive information, while gag orders prohibit defendants from talking publicly about a pending case. The disagreement over the protective order is a routine part of the case but highlights the constitutional concerns surrounding gag orders.
The upcoming hearing with Judge Chutkan will play a crucial role in determining the extent of restrictions on evidence in this high-profile case. Both sides will present their arguments, emphasizing their constitutional rights and the fair administration of justice. As the legal battle continues, the outcome of this dispute will shape the trajectory of the criminal election interference case against Trump.
“Zombie enthusiast. Subtly charming travel practitioner. Webaholic. Internet expert.”