Many thanks for that.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
re: Conflicts (Garcia) Hearing
I’m not a fan of Judge Cannon, but I think it was appropriate to reset the Garcia hearing in this case. It started fine for the first witness/attorney, then went off the rails and ended early for Nauta (the first witness/different attorney’s hearing went fine/his client waived).
Basically, the Gov’t was asking Nauta to waive conflicts that might not even legally exist, and that the Gov’t did not brief in advance - they brought them up for the first time at the hearing. The Judge was frustrated by this tactic. It puts Nauta and Nauta’s attorney in a difficult spot - how can you advise Nauta to waive potential conflicts you don’t know about and are not even sure are actual legal conflicts between attorney/client; and have to do it on the spot.
Specifically, the Gov’t wanted the Court to rule that Woodward could not cross-examine, nor impugn the credibility during closing, of “Trump Employee 4” (Taveras). That wasn’t briefed and only first discussed until the actual hearing. What was briefed was that, due to the conflict, Woodward might have to go soft on cross (that’s the conflict that Nauta can waive, or choose to get a new attorney), not that his attorney couldn’t do any cross of a former client at all; and there was no briefing about a blanket rule of not being able to discuss Taveras credibility during closing. It’s not clear if this is something Nauta should even be advised about/needs to be waived - there’s no precedent for it.
So, they need to go back and brief this properly for the Judge, give Nauta’s attorney a chance to respond, and redo the hearing. Seems normal to me.
Here’s a detailed article from someone at the hearing: Why a Conflicts Hearing for…Nauta Imploded
The more I think about it, the more I believe the immunity grant to Mark Meadows has to do with what he can testify to in the documents case.
His immunity deal is in the news relating to the January 6th election interference case and he no doubt could have some interesting testimony to give, but there are lots of witnesses to what happened there, many of them almost as good as Meadows.
But with respect to what Trump was doing with classified material in the White House and afterward from the time Trump lost the election (and knew it) to the time he was shuffling boxes around Mar-A-Lago, I think Meadows may have been particularly well positioned to testify about Trump’s actions and motives. Few others were. Together with the frantic burn sessions in his office, it might make sense.
Just some idle musings on my part.
Glenn Kirschner goes in depth about Meadows plea deal.(14:00)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGBMbpf_DI
I’m shocked. Shocked!
Well, not that shocked.
Delay delay delay… Oops now we don’t have enough time for the defendant to get a fair trial. 
Luckily there are enough other trials going on with judges that aren’t in the bag for Trump.
Trump doesn’t talk shit about this judge on social media!
Well with this trial being dragged (drug, drugged?) out; Judge Chutkan can move up the DC trial. Donnie certainly can’t complain about that.
Cannon is on record as being severely reprimanded for incompetency, so yeah, none of us should be shocked by any developments like this.
Andrew Weissmann blasted Loose Cannon on Xitter:
Wednesday Trump’s legal team attempts another delaying tactic.
Thursday Jack Smith’s team files a notice to Judge Cannon warning of the delaying tactics and suggesting that the judge was being manipulated.
Friday Judge Cannon rejects the filing, saying it’s too long.
I’m having a flashback to “Amadeus” where the Emperor is complaining that a piece of music that Mozart wrote has too many notes.
It was 237 words. That’s way over the limit and would have added hours of work.
ETA: I’m wondering if this behavior, if continued, crosses a line where Smith can pursue some type of remedy from a higher authority.
Legal folks (@Aspenglow), is that a thing? How common is it that a judge rejects a notice because it is slightly over some limit?
Sorry for the delayed response – I’ve been off running errands. 
My experience is getting rather long in the tooth, but local rules can include all kinds of things. I imagine in these days of electronic filings, it’s a trivial thing for the Clerk’s Office to verify a word count of any filing. I can also envision judges getting fed up with too-wordy filings and limiting them in word counts. But this was not a thing when or where I clerked.
I think the question becomes, how rigorous is general enforcement of this local rule? If they adhere to it strictly across the board, then that sucks for Jack Smith. But if a review of like filings reveals that Smith’s team was singled out for this treatment, then yes-- I think it strengthens Smith’s case that Cannon is specifically prejudiced against the prosecution and should be removed from trying this case.
I hope it’s the latter. IMHO, Cannon is a real piece of work.
Since word counts are easily quantifiable, it’s just a matter of how accessible similar documents in other cases are. Can Smith easily access a dozen or so other documents that exceeded her maximum word count by other lawyers appearing before her?
Pretty easy. Most pleadings are a matter of public record in most cases.
Right out of college, as I pondered whether or not to go to law school, I worked for a law firm.
Like we hear about celebrities and the ‘riders’ to their contracts – really odd and diva-ish things that simply must be in their dressing rooms – I remember no end of arcana that varied from court to court.
What color Post-it notes, what size paper clips, where paper clips and staples could and could not be, whether a Post-it note had to be folded at the corner of the document before a staple pierced the pages, cover sheets/no cover sheets, document covers or none, hole-punched or not, and on and on and on.
And the attorneys, paralegals, and legal secretaries with whom I worked paid scrupulous attention to those things.
The penalty for what they viewed as unforced errors could be extremely high, even if it was as ‘pedestrian’ as having missed a filing deadline.
Much may have changed with the reduction in actual paper, but it’s probably not a relic of a bygone era, generally.
Is it all with good intent, for good reason, and serves justice? Oh, I think that would be a difficult position to argue*.
But it’s pretty much a case of an adhesion contract, so to speak: they’ve got it, you want it, the monkey has to dance.
*ETA: without those rules, and without rigid consistency (at least intra-court), the job of nearly every single Courthouse employee would be infinitely harder. Those challenges can result in delays, cost increases, errors, etc.
I think it’s important to note that I understand that 
Obviously, YMMV, but I’ve never run into those sorts of odds and ends in my practice.
Would the judge’s instruction as to the maximum permissible number of words also be in the public record?
The judge doesn’t issue these instructions. Local court rules are arrived at collectively by a particular bench. They are published both in print and on the venue’s website.
It is the duty of attorneys appearing in that venue to be aware of the rules and comply with them. The first thing any attorney should do when appearing in a new court is to review and be mindful of the local court rules.