Judge Tanya Chutkan on Thursday denied former President Donald Trump’s request to delay until after the election the unsealing of court records and exhibits in the 2020 election interference case and said the court would disclose evidence submitted by the government on Friday.
In his five-page order, Chutkan said there was a presumption that there should be public access to “all facets of criminal proceedings” and that Trump, in asserting that the documents should remain under seal, was not had submitted no relevant argument to any of the criminal court proceedings. factors that would need to be taken into consideration. Instead, Trump’s lawyers argued that keeping it under seal for another month “would serve other interests,” Chutkan wrote. “Ultimately, none of these arguments are convincing.”
She had been tasked with deciding whether the annex and the brief submitted by Special Counsel Jack Smith earlier this month is expected to be made public, but with some information kept secret. Chutkan allowed the brief to be made public last week, although it included redactions of the names of alleged co-conspirators, campaign staff and White House officials, as well as some references to grand jury proceedings.
Shortly after Trump filed his opposition to any further disclosure, Chutkan granted Smith’s request to file the annex with its proposed redactions into the public record. But she also granted Trump’s request to suspend her decision for seven days while he explores his options for further litigation.
The special counsel said much of the annex contains sensitive documents that should be hidden from the public. This proof, is the subject of a protection order released early in the case last year, likely includes transcripts of grand jury testimony and interviews with the FBI.
Trump’s lawyers had said Chutkan should not authorize the release of additional information at this time, saying in a filing that “the asymmetrical release of indicted allegations and related documents during early voting creates a disturbing appearance of interference electoral”.
Chutkan denied it would be an “asymmetrical release,” emphasizing that the court was not “limiting public access to just one party.” She said Trump was free to submit his “legal arguments and factual proposals regarding immunity” at any time. before the deadline of November 7, 2024.”
She also said it was Trump’s argument that risked interfering with the election, rather than the court’s actions.
“If the court withheld information that the public was otherwise entitled to access solely because of the potential political consequences of its disclosure, that withholding could itself constitute — or appear to be — election interference,” Chutkan wrote. “The court will therefore continue to keep political considerations out of its decision-making process, rather than integrating them as requested by the accused.”
She said that in a separate order Friday, the court would place the appendix containing Smith’s proposed redactions on the public docket.
The proceedings in the case against Trump were relaunched in August after the Supreme Court ruled that former presidents right to a certain immunity criminal charges stemming from official acts they performed while at the White House.
Prosecutors requested a new indictment against Trump to comply with the high court’s ruling that contained a narrower set of allegations and removed references to his discussions with Justice Department officials. The court’s conservative majority ruled that such interactions were prohibited for prosecutors.
Trump was initially billed in August 2023 with four counts stemming from what Smith claimed was a scheme to overturn the transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election. The former president still faces the same four counts in the new indictment and pleaded not guilty.
The two sides are currently debating whether the conduct alleged in the slimmed-down indictment is protected by presidential immunity, a decision that will ultimately be up to Chutkan. Trump’s lawyers said they would do it again seek to have the entire case was dismissed on the grounds of presidential immunity and other grounds.
Robert Legare and Melissa Quinn contributed to this report.
