Thread by @realjusthuman

United States v. Allen
(WHCA Dinner Shooter)

Judge McFadden DENIES the defense's motion to disqualify @USAttyPirro and @DAGToddBlanche from the case.

Defense had argued that Blanche and Pirro being at the scene of the alleged crime and publicly commenting on it had created a conflict.

The four main arguments were the following:

(1) Their presence at the WHCA Dinner made them witnesses (both reported hearing the gunshots)

(2) Their presence at the WHCA Dinner made them potential victims of Allen (according to the gov't's theory of the case), (both reported that they were in the “line of fire” and had to be evacuated)

(3) Blanche and Pirro's statements to media about the events at the WHCA Dinner were prejudicial and showed bias

(4) Citing the longtime friendship of Trump and Pirro, Trump being the alleged intended victim, and Pirro being the prosecutor, this created an appearance of impropriety.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Judge McFadden addresses argument (1)—Blanche and Pirro were witnesses.

"...whatever firsthand knowledge they have about Allen’s actions appears limited to what anyone in the ballroom would have..."

"...absent special circumstances, an attorney can “elect in which capacity [he] intend[s] to proceed, either as counsel or as a witness.” Because neither side indicates that it plans to call Blanche or Pirro as a witness, the advocate-witness rule poses no concerns."

If the government or defense decides they want to call Blanche or Pirro as witnesses, McFadden would reconsider his decision.

(2)—Blanche and Pirro were potential victims.

"Even accepting Allen’s premise that the 'victim' of a crime should not prosecute the alleged perpetrator, his application sweeps too far. He presumes that because Blanche or Pirro could have been harmed or because they view themselves as victims, they are 'victims'” in a legal sense. That is wrong."

"...neither Blanche nor Pirro is a victim of Allen’s alleged crimes."

"That they theoretically could have been injured or that they were present at the alleged crime scene does not make them 'victims' of the charged crimes in a legal sense."

The victims in this case are the POTUS, the USSS officer, and (perhaps) the United States.

(3)—Blanche and Pirro made prejudicial statements, showed bias

"Allen’s argument demands from Blanche and Pirro greater disinterest than the law requires. Blanche’s and Pirro’s statements show their interest in prosecuting him and indicate their belief in his guilt."

"Allen has not shown that either Blanche or Pirro possess anything other than 'the appropriate interest that members of society have in bringing a defendant to justice with respect to the crime with which he is charged.'"

(4)—The appearance of impropriety given Trump and Pirro's friendship and current roles.

"the Court concludes that disqualification to avoid the appearance of impropriety alone is inappropriate."

"Allen’s concerns are mostly a symptom of the charged crime. He stands accused of attempting to kill the President by an agency that assists the President with his “constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’”

The Court appreciates that this may give Allen pause. But the Court does not see any impropriety in the Justice Department fulfilling its role."

"More, Blanche’s and Pirro’s roles in this case assuage Allen’s specific concerns. Their remote supervisory status undermines the impropriety claim."

Filing here
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

An interesting situation and an unsurprising order, well handled by McFadden.

It would have been amusing if DOJ had said "Okay, no problem, we'll move the case to Virginia or West Virginia or some other district that Allen travelled through on his way to D.C.

Might have resulted in a less sympathetic jury pool for Allen.