Judge Aileen Cannon rejected on Thursday challenges former President Donald Trump raised about the legitimacy of a warrant in his classified documents case, but she added a new hearing to the schedule to consider other objections Trump has made to evidence in the case.
Cannon wrote in an order denying Trump’s request for what is known as a Franks hearing, at which a judge can weigh whether a warrant contained misleading information, that the former president did not show any outcome-determinative problems with the warrant.
Trump had argued government investigators left out information on warrant documents when they submitted them to a judge for approval and that, if the information had been included, it would have led the judge to deny the warrant request.
“[Trump] identifies four omissions in the warrant, but none of the omitted information—even if added to the affidavit in support of the warrant—would have defeated a finding of probable cause,” Cannon wrote.
The FBI used the warrant in 2022 to execute a search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence. Agents obtained dozens of boxes of his personal items and government documents during the search, and the evidence is now being used against him as he faces 40 charges of illegally hoarding national defense information.
Trump’s defense team was aiming to toss out evidence obtained through the warrant, but it is also looking to suppress evidence on the grounds that some of it is protected by attorney-client privilege. In addition to the Franks hearing, defense attorneys asked for a hearing on the latter concern, and Cannon agreed that that one was warranted.
FOR BIDEN, THE DEBATE STAKES COULDN’T BE HIGHER
Special counsel Jack Smith has argued that there is a “crime-fraud” exception that allows prosecutors to override attorney-client privilege and that any hearing on the matter would spiral into a “mini-trial” and unnecessarily delay the case.
Cannon disagreed with Smith and said a hearing was a “standard means” to sort out the privilege dispute.
“There is nothing unduly prejudicial or legally erroneous about Defendant Trump’s fact development request as brought in the Motion to Suppress,” Cannon said, noting that she would schedule the hearing in a separate order.
At issue is testimony Smith obtained from Trump’s former lawyer Evan Corcoran. A district judge in Washington, D.C., ruled last year that attorney-client privilege would not shield Corcoran from having to testify before a grand jury about conversations he had with the former president about the return of classified documents to the government.
If Cannon were to throw out Corcoran’s testimony, Smith would lose a significant piece of evidence for the obstruction charges he brought against Trump.
Cannon’s decision to hold a hearing on the matter is a small victory for Trump because it adds more delays to the pretrial process. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has pushed for a trial to take place after the election.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Originally scheduled for May, Cannon scrapped the trial start date this year after a buildup of legal challenges and deadlines made the date unfeasible.
The judge has not set a new date, which has prompted frustration from critics who argue she is holding superfluous hearings and taking too long with her decisions. Trump supporters have, on the other hand, signaled they are pleased with Cannon giving what they view as more methodical consideration to the former president’s arguments than what judges in his other cases have done.
