US District Judge Aileen Cannon is set to hear arguments from defense attorneys seeking to dismiss charges in Trump’s classified documents case.
One motion, filed by Trump’s valet and co-defendant Walt Nauta, claims vindictive prosecution. Another motion, from Trump and his co-defendants, contends that the indictment has technical flaws that warrant dismissal. Trump has been granted permission by the judge to skip Wednesday’s proceedings, which will commence at 10 a.m. ET in the Fort Pierce, Florida courthouse.
This will be the first hearing before Judge Cannon since she indefinitely delayed the trial's start, originally scheduled to begin this week. Over a month has passed since her last public, in-person hearing in the case, though there has been at least one sealed proceeding during that time.
When postponing the trial, Cannon cited numerous unresolved pretrial issues, refraining from setting a new trial date. Wednesday’s hearing begins a series of sessions extending through late July, aimed at addressing some of these pretrial matters.
The proceedings have become mired in disputes over redactions in public filings. Hundreds of pages of previously sealed court documents were made public on Tuesday as part of efforts by Trump to have the charges against him dismissed. These filings included a previously sealed March 2023 ruling by a federal judge in Washington, DC, which found there was “sufficient” evidence that Trump committed crimes. This ruling permitted investigators to access information from his former lawyer that would typically be protected by attorney-client privilege.
Trump is seeking to exclude evidence obtained from the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago in August 2022, which provided many of the documents forming the basis of several charges against him. These motions are not set for argument on Wednesday, and Judge Cannon has not yet scheduled a hearing for them.
In her order on Sunday, which allowed for the filings to be made public, Cannon criticized prosecutors. She noted her “concern” that the special counsel's office sought redactions in the newly unsealed filings after previously agreeing to have that information published in full in earlier court documents. This criticism is one of several appropriately directed at Smith’s office.
“The Court is disappointed in these developments. The sealing and redaction rules should be applied consistently and fairly upon a sufficient factual and legal showing, and parties should not make requests that undermine any prior representations or positions except upon full disclosure to the Court and appropriate briefing.” Cannon wrote
