'Grand jury material': The battle over Mar-a-Lago docs evidence rages on

02 May 2024

While Donald Trump's trial in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Jr.'s hush money/falsified business records prosecution is moving along at a rapid pace, it appears unlikely that either of special counsel Jack Smith's federal cases against the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee will go to trial before the November election.

Smith's election interference case is in limbo while the U.S. Supreme Court weighs Trump's absolute immunity claims, and the Mar-a-Lago documents trial has been repeatedly delayed by Judge Aileen Cannon.

Reporting for Law & Crime, legal journalist Colin Kalmbacher describes the ongoing battle over evidence in the Mar-a-Lago case.

Cannon, Kalmbacher notes, has set aside 90 minutes on Wednesday afternoon, May 8 "to discuss grand jury matters."

In an order issued on May 1, Cannon — a Trump appointee — wrote, "To the extent any non-parties to this proceeding have not yet had an opportunity to appear and be heard on the disclosure petition now transferred to this Court, the parties shall come prepared to discuss any additional procedures required."

Trump's defense team, according to Kalmbacher, is not required to be present during the May 8 hearing — which, Cannon wrote, will address "specific grand jury material implicated in this proceeding in light of the Special Counsel's sealed status report."

Smith alleges that Trump endangered the United States' national security by storing classified White House documents at Mar-a-Lago after leaving office. Trump, according to Smith, had no business taking the material to Mar-a-Lago and should have left it in Washington, D.C.

Trump and his defense team, however, have maintained that he did nothing illegal and that the documents were declassified before being taken to Mar-a-Lago.

Kalmbacher reports, "Special counsel Jack Smith has fought vociferously to keep certain information in the case under lock and key. Cannon has been heavily criticized by the prosecution in numerous filings — and by a steady stream of legal and political pundits in the media — for tentative decisions that allowed publishing witnesses' names."

Read Law & Crime's full report at this link.

From Your Site Articles