Judge rules Trump can share some evidence publicly in 2020 election case
World
Judge rules Trump can share some evidence publicly in 2020 election case
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday ruled that former President Donald Trump will be allowed to publicly share some non-sensitive evidence that will be used in his trial on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, handing his lawyers a victory.
Her ruling goes against the objections of prosecutors, who said they are concerned that Trump could use details of the confidential evidence to intimidate witnesses.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled on Friday the government had not met its burden to show why all of the evidence should be subject to a "protective order," which safeguards evidence from being shared with the public in order to prevent witness intimidation or tainting a jury pool.
However, she warned that Trump is nevertheless subject to release conditions that ban him from intimidating witnesses and said she will be watching his statements and "scrutinizing them very carefully."
The government will still be allowed to petition the court for certain pieces of evidence to be covered by the order, and Chutkan also on Friday agreed with prosecutors and rejected an argument by Trump's lawyers that transcripts of witness interviews are sensitive and cannot be publicly shared.
“He is a criminal defendant. He is going to have restrictions like every single other defendant. This case is proceeding in the normal order,” Chutkan said.
“The fact the defendant is engaged in a political campaign is not going to allow him any greater or lesser latitude than any defendant in a criminal case.”
It is standard practice for federal prosecutors to request protective orders before sharing evidence with defense lawyers to protect confidential records and ensure the integrity of the trial.
Often, defense lawyers do not oppose them because doing so slows down the government's production of evidence, a process known as "discovery," to help them prepare.
But Trump's attorneys have argued that the scope of the protective order is too broad, and would run afoul of his free speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"This kind of blanket order is extraordinary," Trump's lawyer John Lauro said on Friday. "We have to face the fact we are in uncharted waters."
