Special counsel Jack Smith criticized Judge Aileen Cannon’s handling of the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, stating that her understanding of the case was flawed and had no basis in law or fact. Smith’s team strongly opposed Cannon’s request for jury instructions that supported Trump’s claims of having broad authority to handle classified documents and threatened to seek an appeals court review if she accepted Trump’s arguments about his record-retention powers.
In response to an unusual order from Cannon, attorneys in the classified documents case were asked to submit briefs on potential jury instructions defining terms of the Espionage Act under which Trump is charged. Cannon requested two versions of proposed jury instructions, one assessing whether the records retained by Trump were personal or presidential according to the Presidential Records Act, and the other assuming Trump had complete authority to take White House records, making it difficult to secure a conviction.
The special counsel’s team argued that both scenarios proposed by Cannon were flawed in their legal premise, stating that the distinction between personal and presidential records under the Presidential Records Act does not determine whether a former president is authorized to possess highly classified documents. Prosecutors contended that presenting such instructions to a jury would distort the trial and potentially favor Trump’s defense.
Trump’s defense attorneys proposed their own jury instructions, claiming that Trump was authorized to possess a category of documents defined as personal records and challenging Smith’s ability to prove that Trump knowingly retained the documents against the law. Prosecutors maintained that the Presidential Records Act was not relevant to the charges against Trump, as the alleged conduct occurred after his presidency ended and his claim to have deemed the records personal was fabricated.
Prosecutors revealed evidence that Trump did not designate the relevant classified records as personal when he left the White House, only adopting this position later based on advice from a conservative legal organization. While Cannon appeared skeptical of outright dismissal of the case, she acknowledged the forceful arguments made by Trump’s attorneys and indicated she was still weighing how the Presidential Records Act fits into the case.
The ongoing dispute between the special counsel and Trump’s defense attorneys over jury instructions and the relevance of the Presidential Records Act to the charges against the former president has underscored the complexities of the case and the legal arguments being made. Judge Cannon’s handling of the case has been subject to criticism from prosecutors, who view her requests for hypothetical jury instructions as potentially favoring Trump’s defense and distorting the trial’s outcome. The outcome of this legal battle remains uncertain as both sides present their arguments before the court.
