In a filing posted Sunday, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon for the Southern District of Florida expressed her concern over Special Counsel Jack Smith’s handling of certain sealed materials in the case against former President Donald Trump. Smith, acting as special counsel for the Department of Justice, is prosecuting Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents taken to his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, after leaving office in January 2021. Trump faces 40 felony counts in the case.
Judge Cannon, a Trump appointee, raised her concerns after Smith requested that certain information be kept from the public to protect the secrecy of the grand jury and the safety of witnesses. She noted that Smith had ignored these issues at other points in the case. “The Court deems it necessary to express concern over the Special Counsel’s treatment of certain sealed materials in this case,” Cannon stated.
Cannon’s filing highlighted that Smith had argued for unsealing certain materials to publicly counter defense allegations of prosecutorial misconduct raised in pretrial motions. She wrote, “[C]ounsel explained that the Special Counsel took the position on unsealing in order to publicly and transparently refute defense allegations of prosecutorial misconduct raised in pretrial motions. Fair enough.” However, she added that there was no reason Smith could not have defended his office’s integrity while also preserving the safety of witnesses and upholding Rule 6(e) concerns about grand jury secrecy.
Cannon expressed disappointment in Smith’s inconsistent handling of the sealing and redaction issues, stating, “nowhere in that explanation is there any basis to conclude that the Special Counsel could not have defended the integrity of his Office while simultaneously preserving the witness-safety and Rule 6(e) concerns he has repeatedly told the Court, and maintains to this day, are of serious consequence, and which the Court has endeavored with diligence to accommodate in its multiple Orders on sealing/redaction. The Court is disappointed in these developments.”
According to Cannon, Smith had shown no objection to the full unsealing of docket entries in two separate filings. “In light of that repeated representation, and in the absence of any defense objection, the Court unsealed those materials consistent with the general presumption in favor of public access,” she explained. She concluded, “The sealing and redaction rules should be applied consistently and fairly upon a sufficient factual and legal showing.”
This sequence of events reveals a notable inconsistency in Smith’s approach. Initially, Smith had no objection to unsealing documents, with no objections from the defense. However, he later requested that Judge Cannon keep certain information from the public. This reversal prompted Cannon’s visible frustration with Smith’s inconsistent handling of the case.
The case against Trump is part of a broader legal challenge he faces, including a separate trial in Manhattan where he is accused of falsifying business records by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Some may accuse Cannon of favoritism due to her appointment by Trump, but her actions, such as rejecting Trump’s request to redact multiple witness statements, suggest otherwise. The legal battles continue as Trump navigates multiple indictments and trials amidst his re-election bid.
"*" indicates required fields
