Not yet. 
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Dare to dream!
There are some really nice suburbs in New Jersey. I used to wonder why really rich c-suite executives would live in New Jersey instead of Connecticut until I had occasion to go to one of their houses. Impressive.
(New Jersey also offers a much easier commute into the city than Connecticut.)
You’d probably eat more than McDonald’s, too.
Of course, reasonable minds may disagree.
Pre-redacting would definitely help speed this along. The problem is getting everyone to agree on what can be disclosed that is difficult. If we take one document, there is basically 3 different parties (+ the Judge) who have an interest in what the jury should see.
All things being equal (and very generally):
-
The Prosecution/DOJ: As a prosecutor needing to prove this is important/secret stuff, they’d want the jury to see the whole thing to show how important the document is. They are prosecutors that want to win the case. Or better, maybe some strategically placed black redactions over some parts. Black redactions inherently scream sensitive info/important. Imagine a fully redacted document. You have no idea what’s underneath, but you instinctively assume it’s important.
-
The owner of the document: Let’s say it’s the CIA (the “victim” of this crime). They don’t want to disclose anything. It’s their top secret information. Give it back and everyone go away. They just want it remain secret - they don’t prosecute crimes, and I’m not sure how much they actually care. They are letting DOJ use it as evidence, but they still ultimately decide what gets to be seen or not seen since it’s their document/information. There is a lot of back n forth between CIA and DOJ and what they think the jury should see - and they have conflicting viewpoints here and need to compromise.
-
Defendant: It depends on the document I’d guess. Certainly not a lot of black redactions which they’d argue seem inherently prejudicial. Probably they’d want the jury to see the whole thing. Convict me or not on the actual evidence you’re accusing me of retaining. Or white redactions. Or a boring summary instead of the actual document. A lot of ways to properly defend yourself that are not aligned with DOJ or CIA.
So it goes like this:
The DOJ and CIA have to compromise on what they’d want the redacted document to look like, as if they controlled everything. Hopefully they have done that part, or at least agreed to what would cross CIA’s line of too much.
But then, clearly Defendant gets a say and it might not be what the DOJ/CIA agreed to (DOJ wants it to say “Invade Iran Plans” and the rest blacked out? Hell no. Show the whole thing, which is likely more boring and seems much less secret with all the other words - like reading legalese.)
Then the Judge rules on the final version.
Then CIA might say, nope, Judge allowed too much disclosure, give it back Jack. Or DOJ might say, Judge white redacted too much - it looks like a blank piece of paper, let’s drop this charge.
That’s to get one document into evidence. Do that 31 times. It’s also saying these are all owned by CIA. Probably not (although I imagine the docs were selected to minimize this - they seem all military related). If there are multiple agencies (NSA, DoD, etc) who make up the 31 documents it’s more complicated.
It’ll be interesting in how Jack navigates this and how much thought was put into the 31 documents (a lot) - regardless, a clean factual case (the case we have in our heads) is also a pre-trial logistical nightmare and, assuming they don’t declassify everything, no one knows how or what evidence will be shown to the jury at this point. Without a plea deal (which generally happens), it takes a long time to work through all this. Add in the Trump factor and it’ll take longer.
Nothing in your post sounds remotely correct.
They care about not just this document, but about all the other documents they’re going to have in the future. They don’t want anyone to steal those, either. Which means they need to deter that sort of behavior, which means they want a conviction. They’d like that conviction to occur with the least amount of information leakage possible, but they do want the conviction.
I’m quite sure that our intelligence community always assumes that all former secrets held in Bed Bath and Beyond have already been compromised.
I think Trump only likes.places where he is in charge.
Fair enough, and I appreciate your succinctness. It’s not a normal trial, though. I definitely made it sound folksy and uncomplicated to make it clear and get my point across. I’m happy to dive into any specific criticisms/clarity as Chronos correctly pointed out, but I do think my post is generally correct to convey the complexity of these types of cases and the different interests involved. Can we agree that the information is almost certainly still Top Secret to the owner, and there is a prosecutor, defendant, and owner of the document who might have different interests in the document? If so, it’s easy to understand the complexity. I mean, I even left out the ex parte (ie, Defendant cannot attend the hearing) part of the process in getting this done! =)
Happy to provide cites. Here’s a helpful article about the general process: The Classified Information Procedures Act: What It Means and How It’s Applied:
The Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) is a critical law for national security prosecutions: It establishes a number of key procedures that facilitate a balance between the fundamental rights of defendants in criminal trials and the government’s interests in keeping classified information out of the wrong hands.
There are three main ways that classified information might come up during trial: (1) the prosecution may need to use such information as part of its case, (2) the defense may need to do the same and (3) the defense may need to receive classified information in connection with discovery. A particular problem for the government arises when the defendant claims a need to disclose classified information if prosecuted, and the government is faced with a choice between harming national security by allowing its disclosure or dropping charges.
CIPA is a vital statute for the day-to-day functioning of national security prosecutions. However, its incorporated balancing acts, such as between a defendant’s right to confront the evidence against him versus the government’s national security interest to protect properly classified information, involve difficult legal questions with which lower courts regularly grapple.
Even there, to not complicate their point, they just say “government” - but we know it’s DOJ/owner of document - two different agencies whose interests are not lock step in line.
Another key distinction that isn’t necessarily discussed in that article, but is helpful to understand, is say you’re prosecuting a terrorist for material support and it would be helpful to your case to use top secret documents to show material support. In those cases, you still go ask the CIA, but the documents are just used to prove a part of the crime of material support (or a different way, DOJ can theoretically still win with or without the documents - they are not absolutely necessary to prove the case).
In Trump’s case, the actual documents are the crime (ie, he retained secret documents). So the jury needs to decide if they are what DOJ claims them to be. So ultimately, they have to see something purporting to be the document. Right? So unless as Procrustus suggests, it’s now out there and they’ll just declassify it all (certainly an option I suggested they could do), it’s inherently complicated on how to present this to a jury to keep the secrets secret, but prove to the jury these are secret documents while maintaining Defendant’s constitutional rights.
I haven’t gotten into any of the particulars of your links regarding classified evidence, but my cursory instinct is to say that this can be accomplished through expert witness testimony.
Most witnesses can only testify to what they experienced- things they saw or heard firsthand. But experts can testify as to their opinions regarding the area, by way of either training or experience, in which they’ve become an expert.
So, If you’re the government, you call as a witness a security cleared government agent who was a participant in the collection and review of documents at maralago, who you wound endorse as an expert on government intelligence.
Besides testifying about the time she spent there while executing on a warrant, and what she found where, she’d also testify about her background and training. That would include all of the hoops that she had to jump through to obtain her top top secret classifications, and all of the standards and protocols she has to follow to even know these documents exist. Then she would give her opinion about the documents she reviewed - yes, they were top top secret.
The jury is then called upon to either find her a reliable witness or not, and trust as much or as little of her opinion as they choose.
That’s a very good point. Correct me if I misread, but you’re describing someone who is both a fact witness and expert witness. They found the document and will testify why it’s top secret/related to national defense. Being both is very common (eg, a brain surgeon who perform a brain surgery could testify factually to the surgery, and as an expert that the things that happened met the standard of care and was done correctly).
I’m just unclear if doing it here is proper due to the crime. We do have the document, and, generally, if that’s the case, then you need to use it (best evidence, etc). I can’t find any retention cases that did not plead out and went to trial to see what evidence they used. If they are out there, point me to them.
Nonetheless, it’s a very good point you raise. Everything I’ve read says the evidence is the document: declassify it and mark as an exhibit, redact/summarize it and mark as an exhibit, or use the silent witness rule (doc is not technically an exhibit, but the jury is handed the doc, sees/reads the entire thing, and the expert walks the jury through it at a high level to describe why it’s related to national defense. The only thing made public is the high level expert testimony, but the jury/defendant saw the actual detailed document). So it’s never made clear these are the only ways or not. I’m just passing along what I’ve seen people say and what has been done in non-retention cases (eg, material support terrorist cases where the secret docs used as evidence).
In those places everybody speaks and understands English American.
I always enjoy the Legal Eagle talking about movies about trials and such. He said one of his favorites is The Rainmaker based on one of Grisham’s early novels. I’m glad he recommended it because I’d missed it, and it was really good. He also had a vid on My Cousin Vinny, and despite it being very funny, he said it was also one of the more accurate courtroom movies.
Jim Trusty has fired Trump as a client.
More info about the Trump Mar-a-lago lawyers who withdrew
“Mr. Trusty’s withdrawal is based upon irreconcilable differences between Counsel and Plaintiff and Counsel can no longer effectively and properly represent Plaintiff,” Trusty said in a filing requesting the court’s permission to withdraw.
So, that could mean almost anything, including “he won’t listen to our advice” or “he doesn’t way to pay our retainer.”
I don’t know how this is handled at the federal level, but at the state level in California, if a defendant was unable for whatever reason to retain appropriate counsel, the judge would simply appoint a public defender to move the case along. Obviously any public defender appointed in this case would have to meet some threshold qualifications.
The cost issues would be sorted out at a later time, post trial.
If the issue is (as I suspect) that Trump won’t listen to his lawyer’s advice, well, in the end, that’s on Trump. Not the attorney(s). The attorneys will need to document each instance where they advised him in a certain way. Lots of contemporaneous notes. Lots. And lots. Because guaranteed, one of his issues on appeal will be ineffective assistance of counsel.
“I like lawyers who don’t take notes.” – Trump (citation needed)
I keep expecting Trump to slip away, but it appears as though his long history of bad behavior is finally catching up to him.
Interesting. Trump and his defense attorneys will be allowed supervised visitation with the documents involved in the Indictment:
Also noteworthy:
Judge Aileen Cannon, who oversaw Trump’s previous challenge to the investigation, referred the motion to Reinhart, who approved the initial search of Mar-a-Lago.
Color me infinitesimally impressed.