Washington — In the ongoing classified documents case against former President Donald Trump, special counsel Jack Smith is pushing for the exclusion of a presidential recordkeeping law from the jury instructions, as revealed in court documents filed on Tuesday. Smith's team argued that including the law in the instructions could disrupt the trial proceedings, with prosecutors indicating they would challenge any ruling against their stance.
Recently, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, presiding over the case in Florida, requested both Smith's and Trump's legal teams to submit jury instructions based on two hypothetical scenarios. In one scenario, the president holds the authority, as per the Presidential Records Act (PRA), to designate records as personal, a decision that would be beyond the review of a court or jury. This scenario could potentially undermine a significant portion of the special counsel's case against Trump.
In the other, the jury would be able to examine a record that had been retained by a former president and make a finding that it was either "personal or presidential," under the PRA. Under this scenario, it is possible jurors could find that some official documents were mishandled.
Federal prosecutors rejected both proposals and wrote Tuesday that the PRA — a 1978 law that manages the maintenance of White House documents produced during each presidency — "should not play any role at trial at all," arguing that Trump's alleged mishandling of classified records occurred after his presidency ended.
Trump and Smith filed separate proposals for jury instructions in the case Tuesday, although a trial date has yet to be set.
Prosecutors said Tuesday that both of Cannon's hypothetical scenarios "rest on an unstated and fundamentally flawed legal premise." Any jury instructions that include the PRA risked "distort[ing] the trial," they said.
Instead, the special counsel suggested jurors should only have to determine three elements of the case that amount to whether Trump willfully retained national defense information without the authorization of the federal government.
Smith's team requested that if the judge opts to include language concerning the PRA, she affords them ample time to appeal the matter to higher courts ahead of trial.
The former president's legal team took the opposite view, writing Cannon "correctly stated the law" when she suggested the jury instruction that would have granted Trump much broader power under the PRA.
"Legal Battle Over Trump's Handling of Classified Documents Continues"
As the legal battle over former President Trump's handling of classified documents continues, his defense team argues that presenting the case to a jury would lead to resolving factual issues regarding the categorizations of documents and their alleged classification status. They maintain that Trump was authorized to access the classified records during his presidency, citing certain precedents that allow former presidents to access such documents.
The special counsel has charged Trump with a 40-count indictment, including 32 alleged violations of a national security law related to mishandling national defense information. Additionally, Trump is accused of engaging in an obstruction scheme to impede federal investigators probing his retention of documents with classified markings. Over 300 sensitive government records were recovered from Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence, leading to the accusations of illegal possession.
Despite the charges, Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts and has consistently denied any wrongdoing. In a recent filing, the special counsel argued that the distinction between presidential and private records under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) should be determined by the judge, not a jury, as it does not directly apply to Trump's alleged conduct.
Trump's legal team has filed a number of motions to dismiss the case against him, including one on the grounds that the PRA granted Trump "unreviewable discretion" over classified records.
"President Trump was still the President of the United States when, for example, many of the documents at issue were packed (presumably by the GSA), transported, and delivered to Mar-A-Lago," they wrote in a February court filing.
Attorneys for the former president also argued that the PRA "precludes judicial review" over a president's recordkeeping, contending that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter, language that was reflected in Cannon's order asking for input on the proposed jury instructions.
Smith's team, however, pushed back in responding court filings, writing that the more than 300 documents with classified markings recovered from Trump "are indisputably presidential, not personal."
"Trump was not authorized to possess classified records at all," prosecutors said.
The federal probe into Trump's handling of classified records followed a months-long effort by federal officials to collect what they said were missing documents. Investigators ultimately executed a search warrant at his Florida residence and club, Mar-a-Lago, in August of 2022, after the former president allegedly failed to fully respond to a grand jury subpoena.
In Tuesday's filing, Smith's team once again pushed back, claiming that Trump's use of the PRA was a fabricated defense created after the federal probe began. The special counsel stated that Trump's assertion of the power to designate government documents as personal was unsupported by his interactions with his legal team or witness testimonies.
Prosecutors disclosed that during the grand jury investigation, individuals close to the former president, such as his chiefs of staff and top White House lawyers, were interviewed by the special counsel's office.
"Not a single individual reported hearing Trump declare records as personal or indicate that he considered the transfer of boxes to Mar-a-Lago as a personal designation under the PRA," the special counsel stated. "In fact, every witness questioned on this matter denied knowledge of such actions."
In response to Cannon's ruling, Trump's legal team reiterated their argument that the PRA shielded the former president from prosecution.
"There is no justification for the Special Counsel's Office, this Court, or a jury to question President Trump's specific categorizations under the PRA," they stated.
Judge Cannon has yet to make a decision on any of Trump's requests to dismiss the indictment. Trump's legal team has once again urged her to rule in his favor. Two of Trump's aides, Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira, are also facing charges in the case and have filed their own motions, which are still pending. Both Nauta and de Oliveira have pleaded not guilty to accusations that they collaborated with Trump to obstruct the federal investigation.
As of now, the judge has not scheduled a trial date for the case, which was originally set for late May. Additionally, there has been no ruling on a request from Smith for the judge to reconsider a decision regarding the protection of witness identities. A hearing on these matters took place on March 1.
Initially, Trump argued that the trial should not proceed before the fall election. However, he later agreed that August would be a feasible start date if the judge chooses to move forward. The special counsel has advocated for the trial to commence in July, but with several pending motions on Cannon's docket, this timeline seems less likely to be adopted.
