Judge in Trump documents case weighs whether defense lawyers are too close to witnesses – USA TODAY
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon extended a hearing Thursday because prosecutors raised new arguments about whether the lawyer for one of Donald Trump’s co-defendants in the classified documents case is too close to witnesses.
“I admonish the government for wasting the court’s time,” Cannon told members of Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s team.
For the second defendant, Cannon ruled the lawyer could remain on the case.
Smith had warned Cannon that lawyers representing Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, two staffers at Mar-a-Lago where the FBI seized the classified documents, might have conflicts.
Stanley Woodward represents Nauta, Trump’s personal valet. Woodward has denied any conflict and said prosecutors have no way of knowing what he knows or doesn’t know about what his client communicated to him.
But during the hearing, prosecutor David Harbach said that a Mar-a-Lago staffer would be called as a government witness and questioned about his change in testimony after replacing Woodward as his lawyer. Cannon said prosecutors hadn’t previously raised that argument and it would require another hearing.
John Irving represents De Oliveira, the property manager at Mar-a-Lago. Under questioning from Cannon, De Oliveira said he understood the issues and she allowed Irving to remain as his lawyer.
Trump is charged with unlawful retention of national defense information. He is charged with Nauta and De Oliveira with obstruction of justice. All three have pleaded not guilty.
Here is a summary of potential conflicts prosecutors raised:
Woodward represented seven other people questioned during the investigation, including three likely witnesses at trial, prosecutors said.
Irving represented four other people questioned during the investigation, including three potential witnesses at trial, prosecutors said.
Prosecutors argued there could be two types of conflicts. One is that a lawyer could disclose confidences from his client during cross-examination of a witness. Another is that the attorney might “pull his punches” during cross-examination to protect his client’s confidences or because of his personal interests.
In De Oliveira’s case, according to prosecutors:
Donnie Murrell, another lawyer for De Oliveira, said in a court filing that Irving no longer represents the three witnesses and that he has no confidential information about those witnesses that could be a conflict in cross-examination.
“Here, the Government seeks a hearing based on only what it believes is a potential for a conflict, and not any actual conflict,” Murrell wrote.
In Nauta’s case, some of the rationale that explained why each witness could face a conflict was filed in confidential documents. According to prosecutors:
“All three may be witnesses for the Government at trial, raising the possibility that Mr. Woodward might be in the position of cross-examining past or current clients,” prosecutors wrote for Smith. The director of information technology changed lawyers before the grand jury handed up the indictment.
Woodward told prosecutors that he notified his various clients about potential conflicts, but doesn’t think there are any. Woodward said in a filing that he played no role in the grand jury testimony from Taveras, and the witness testified he “wasn’t coached.”
Cannon set the hearings at 1 p.m. for De Oliveira and 3 p.m. for Nauta.