Judge Cannon’s order today not only postpones many trial deadlines in USA v Trump (MaL)—one by >17 weeks—but suggests she may allow an unprecedented approach to a CIPA issue that may force govt to bring an interlocutory appeal ...
/1bit.ly/40wataa
/1bit.ly/40wataa
... The coming dispute involves Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) § 4, which permits the govt to turn over classified docs in discovery in a summarized or redacted form so the defense doesn’t see national defense secrets irrelevant to the case ...
/2
/2
... CIPA provides that the way to do this is for the govt to show the docs & proposed redactions to the judge in a sealed ex parte procedure (defense not present) & for defense to simultaneously outline its defense theories to judge, also ex parte (govt not present). ...
/3
/3
... Judge then decides if redactions are fair. Trump wants new rules for him. He wants his lawyers to see the secret documents and to be able to argue in an adversarial proceeding that the redactions aren’t fair. He tried same thing in DC case. ...
/4
/4
... In DC, Judge Chutkan denied Trump’s request, noting (below) that such a procedure was unprecedented and would defeat purpose of statute. But based on the new schedule Cannon has ordered, it looks like she may grant Trump’s same request in M-a-L case. ...
/5
/5
... Why do I say that? Her original schedule (below) followed normal procedure. It called for the govt & Trump to submit simultaneous Section 4 filings—both ex parte—on 10/4. It then scheduled a hearing (presumably sealed) for one week later, 10/17, to resolve disputes. .../6
... New schedule is completely different. Govt is to file its § 4 motion on 12/4. That same day, Trump now files a motion “contesting the ex parte nature” of the process. (Cannon forgets to provide a date for govt to respond to that motion.) ...
/7
/7
... *Then* >7 weeks later, on 1/23, Trump files “a defense challenge to § 4 motions.” This can only be possible if Cannon has granted Trump’s motion to discard ex parte procedures & proceed adversarially. (Again, she forgets to provide a date for govt to respond.)...
/8
/8
... Cannon then calls for a 2-day hearing on the govt’s § 4 motions for 2/15-2/16. Hard to imagine a 2-day hearing that isn’t adversarial.
If Cannon grants adversarial approach to § 4, govt may have to appeal, further blowing any notion of pre-election trial.
/9-end
If Cannon grants adversarial approach to § 4, govt may have to appeal, further blowing any notion of pre-election trial.
/9-end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
