Judge sets limits on evidence sharing in case

The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s election interference case hammered out the details of a protective order at the middle of a dispute between the previous president’s attorneys and special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutors.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in a Friday morning hearing in Washington, D.C., sided with Trump’s lawyers, who challenged the federal government’s request for a broader ban on the disclosure of evidence and other materials it had gathered within the case.

But she gave the Department of Justice the chance to deem which materials are “sensitive” enough to be covered by the protective order.

The five-page protective order dictates that Trump and his team cannot disclose sensitive materials to anyone who isn’t involved of their legal defense or otherwise authorized by the court. Potential witnesses and their counsel will also be shown the sensitive materials.

The materials that may potentially be deemed “sensitive” by the DOJ include witness testimony, grand jury subpoena returns, records obtained through sealed search warrants and records with personally identifying information.

Those materials, and any copies, should be destroyed after the case concludes, the order states.

In the course of the hearing, Chutkan brushed aside a defense attorney’s concerns that the protective order could hamper Trump’s political speech as he seeks the 2024 Republican presidential nomination.

“The existence of a political campaign isn’t going to have any bearing on my decision,” Chutkan said, NBC News reported.

The judge also told Trump and his team to avoid making any public statements that would have an effect on the integrity of the case. She warned that the more a celebration makes public statements that would influence potential jurors, the faster the case will head to trial.

“Even arguably ambiguous statements by the parties or their counsel, in the event that they may very well be reasonably interpreted to intimidate witnesses or to prejudice potential jurors, can threaten the method,” she said.

The DOJ had previously flagged Trump’s highly lively and bombastic social media presence in its argument for the broader order. Trump has asserted at minimum the trial ought to be postponed until after the 2024 election.

Trump faces 4 counts related to his efforts to overturn his loss to President Joe Biden within the 2020 election. He pleaded not guilty last week in federal court in Washington, D.C.

Prosecutor Thomas Windom argued in Friday’s hearing that barring the previous president from disclosing any and all discovery within the case was obligatory for witness safety and ensuring a good trial. He warned that Trump’s request for a narrower protective order is merely a part of an effort to “do this case within the media” relatively than within the courtroom.

Trump’s lawyers have accused prosecutors of searching for to censor a number one presidential candidate’s political speech. They’ve asked the court for an order that only forbids public disclosure of “genuinely sensitive materials.”

Defense attorney John Lauro called the breadth of the DOJ’s order “extraordinary.” The fees against Trump, a possible rival to Biden within the 2024 general election, under the auspices of the present administration puts the case in “uncharted waters,” Lauro said.

Chutkan noted that she has to weigh Trump’s First Amendment rights with the needs of the trial.

“If that implies that he cannot say exactly what he desires to say about individuals who could also be witnesses on this case, that is how it should need to be,” Chutkan told Lauro.

The proceeding in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., gave prosecutors and defense attorneys their first opportunity to argue before Chutkan, whom Trump has already attacked on social media.

Chutkan is an Obama appointee who has turn into known for her tough posture in other cases involving crimes related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Trump, in a series of recent posts on Truth Social, has accused Chutkan of conflicts of interest and said there’s “no way” he can get a good trial together with her because the judge.

He has suggested his case ought to be handed off to a distinct judge and moved out of Democrat-leaning district to a distinct venue, corresponding to West Virginia.