Judge at the Federal Level Denies Jack Smith’s Request to Keep Officials’ Names Private

Paresh Jadhav

11 months ago

The Supreme Court will not bypass an appeals court and rule directly on whether former presidents may be prosecuted, which means the case against Trump will continue its own timeline to trial.

Federal judge Tanya Chutkan recently denies President Donald Trump’s attempt to hold Special Counsel Jack Smith in contempt of court for continuing to file pretrial motions while an appeals court reviews Trump’s immunity claim.

Table of Contents

Toggle

Departments Sealed

The Supreme Court will ultimately make its decision on whether or not to accept your case, though that process could take months. On Jan. 5, justices are meeting behind closed doors for an informal conference to decide on which cases they’d like to consider next term.

Smith asserted in his request to the high court that this case is of “essential public importance” and warned of potential delays which would put Trump’s trial, scheduled to start March 4, into 2024 or beyond. Smith asked it to act quickly on immunity claims from federal appeals courts that have previously reviewed them, in order for proceedings at trial to begin as planned without too much delay.

Trump’s legal team argues that their client cannot be prosecuted for actions undertaken while serving in his official capacities; however, Chutkan rejected this position based on double jeopardy laws, ruling that former presidents can be charged for acts committed either prior or subsequent to leaving office.

Judge Denies Request to Keep Officials’ Names Secret

Special counsel Jack Smith requested a judge keep the identities of officials involved in his election interference case confidential, as well as any attempts at keeping quiet the identity of former Trump campaign official. A judge denies Smith’s request and also rejected attempts by former campaign officials of Trump not being publicly named in court documents.

Judge Florence Pan posed the question to Trump’s lawyer, “Could a president order SEAL Team Six to assassinate an opponent without being prosecuted?” In response, lawyers for both parties stood about 15 feet apart in courtroom packed with reporters and observers.

Smith has filed a case against former President Trump alleging he and his aides attempted to reverse their 2020 presidential loss to Vice President Joe Biden through various criminal schemes, such as organizing pro-Trump electors in states where he won, and discrediting the Electoral College process by refusing to accept its results at a joint session of Congress on January 6. It is one of four criminal proceedings currently against Trump; others include state court prosecution in Georgia and federal litigation alleging mishandling classified documents at Mar-a-Land estate.

Judge Denies Request to Keep List of Witnesses Secret

District Judge Aileen Cannon’s ruling means some or all of the 84 names on the government list could become public and offer more insight into its nature and scope of this case.

Cannon, appointed to her position by President Trump, found prosecutors had failed to present sufficient reasons why their list should remain under seal. Their claims that its release could threaten witness safety or intimidate witnesses didn’t withstand scrutiny, she wrote.

A coalition of news organizations led by NBCUniversal (the parent company of MSNBC) opposed the government’s request, asserting that a high First Amendment standard must first be met before sealing information from public view. An appeals court hearing on the matter has been scheduled for Jan 9; should it reject immunity claims made by the government and reject their immunity claim, an unexpected showdown with the Supreme Court may ensue shortly afterwards.

Judge Denies Request to Keep List of Defense Attorneys’ Clientele Secret

Trump faces charges related to his attempts at destabilizing the transfer of power by spreading false election fraud claims and pressuring state and federal officials into opening “sham” investigations. If no federal appeals court overturns Cannon’s ruling, that could set up a showdown at the Supreme Court as early as 2024.

Defense attorneys argued that disclosing the identities of witnesses who may be called as witnesses would expose them to physical danger, and bias the jury pool, consisting of people from outside Florida’s predominantly Democratic congressional districts. A judge denied their request.

She denied prosecutors their request for a hearing known as a Garcia hearing to discuss potential conflicts of interest between Woodward’s clients and those prosecuting Donald Trump; this idea was shot down; instead she granted permission for them to interview jurors on their decision not to indict Trump.