In a significant critique of Judge Aileen Cannon’s handling of the case involving classified documents linked to former President Donald Trump, Special Counsel Jack Smith issued strong objections in court filings late Tuesday. Smith asserted that Cannon’s request for jury instructions reflected a flawed understanding of the case, devoid of legal or factual basis.
Critique of Aileen Cannon’s Request
Smith’s team sharply criticized Cannon’s request for jury instructions, which aligned with Trump’s assertions of broad authority over classified government documents. They warned of seeking appellate review if the judge were to accept Trump’s arguments regarding his record-retention powers.
Last month, Cannon issued an uncommon order soliciting briefs on potential jury instructions regarding the Espionage Act, under which Trump faces charges for mishandling 32 classified records. She asked for two versions: one assessing records based on the Presidential Records Act’s distinction between “personal” and “presidential” categories, and another assuming Trump’s unfettered authority as president to retain any document he wished.
Smith’s team contended that both scenarios rested on a flawed legal premise, emphasizing that the Presidential Records Act did not determine Trump’s authorization to possess classified documents under the Espionage Act. They argued that presenting such premises to a jury would distort the trial’s fairness.
Trump’s defense proposed jury instructions asserting his authorization under the Presidential Records Act to retain “personal records.” They also contested the possibility of appropriate instructions under the second scenario, which they claimed would render prosecution impossible.
Prosecutors revealed evidence suggesting Trump’s post-presidential designation of records as personal was fabricated and influenced by a conservative legal figure months after leaving office. They argued that Trump’s claims regarding the records’ personal nature were invented after the National Archives retrieved classified information from Mar-a-Lago.
While Cannon appeared skeptical of outright dismissal during the hearing, she acknowledged the forceful arguments presented by Trump’s attorneys. Her delay in ruling on the case’s dismissal and the request for hypothetical jury instructions indicate ongoing deliberation on the role of the Presidential Records Act in the proceedings.
