Left: Special counsel Jack Smith speaks to the media. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File); Right: Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally. (AP Photo/Mike Roemer)
A person appointed to handle a specific legal case. Jack Smith An individual appointed specifically to handle the former President Donald Trump's documents case Mar-a-Lago urged the judge not to compel the government to comply with defense discovery motions.
In January, Trump's attorneys accused Smith and his office of various discovery violations in a long-winded defense filing and claimed that the federal Florida case stemmed from politically motivated individuals within President Joe Biden’s administration trying to hinder Trump's 2024 presidential election prospects.
In the government’s response opposing this, Smith aims to systematically refute each defense theory while persuading U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that the alleged discovery violations are not relevant to the case.
The government’s response starts by stating that the defendants have already received significant, timely, and comprehensive discovery, including over 1.28 million pages of unclassified discovery and all CCTV footage related to the investigation.
Trump alleges that the prosecution has been holding back evidence that could prove his innocence, claiming that senior officials at various federal agencies possess this evidence.
The defense accuses unnamed officials of trying to create charges against Trump and criticizes Smith for not gathering evidence that members of the Biden administration interfered with the case.
The special counsel dismisses this version of how the case started.
The response continues by stating that the defendants' narrative of the investigation's origins is false, intended to cast suspicion on government officials who were simply doing their jobs.
Smith then presents the state’s theory of the case.
The filing states that the government was dealing with a unique situation: a former President intentionally obstructing the collection of Presidential records, including highly classified documents, and government officials handling the situation with professionalism and patience despite unprecedented defiance.
The defense, in a somewhat subdued way, echoes Trump’s complaints about the "witch hunts" he faces in different places, arguing that there is more evidence of bias and political animus in the government's records that is important to the defense and needs to be provided by Smith’s office.
Trump’s team also wants a legal definition of the prosecution team that includes everyone at several federal agencies, known or unknown.
The defense's requests for showing bias and enlarging the prosecution team would likely greatly expand the potential evidence that needs to be disclosed by the government.
Smith advises the court not to fall for it.
The government's response states that the defense seeks abstract rulings and a range of additional materials that are legally and factually flawed, unsupported, and based on false theories.
Although discussing the merits of a case is unusual in discovery battles, the pretrial process in the Mar-a-Lago case has been atypical, with the defense being given a lot of freedom to present their case and the government feeling compelled to respond. discovery battlesIn the unusual back-and-forth pretrial process in the Mar-a-Lago case, the defense has been given a lot of freedom by the judge to present their case, and the government feels it has to respond in kind.
Smith, accustomed to the in-depth nature of the motions pleading before the distant trial, wants to ensure Cannon shuts down the defense’s vocal complaints before a jury hears them.
The government argues that some of the discovery violations appear to be attempts to introduce evidence and arguments that would not otherwise be allowed at trial.
The jury won't have to decide whether the investigation and prosecution of the case were "politically motivated and biased," whether there was an abuse of the grand jury process, or whether there was some other issue in starting the prosecution. Ignoring this law, the defendants plan to make these exact issues central to their defense at trial, according to Smith's filing.
The government accuses the defense of trying to weaponize six different forms of discovery.
From the motion, in detail:
(1) evidence of “improper coordination with NARA to abuse the grand jury process”; (2) evidence relating to “the attempt to retroactively terminate President Trump’s security clearance and related disclosures”; (3) evidence relating to the “use of secure facilities at President Trump’s residences”; (4) “evidence of bias and investigative misconduct”; (5) “all correspondence and/or communications concerning the search of Mar-a-Lago; and (6) “CCTV footage”
Each request that seeks evidence not already provided fails to establish the requirements for a motion to compel, summarized by Smith as material to the defense, within the Government's control, and not protected by privilege. For these reasons, the Court should deny the defendants' motions to compel entirely.