Jack Smith Wants Judge to Exclude Trump’s January 6 Evidence From Trump’s January 6 Trial
“The Court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation, and should reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding.”
Special Counsel Jack Smith wants U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to block former President Donald Trump from making any political attacks during his January 6th trial, presenting January 6 evidence, etc.
It’s 20 pages long and full of nonsense.
Why is Smith even filing anything? Chutkan paused the case as courts determine if Trump has presidential immunity.
The introduction tells us so much. From the motion (emphasis mine):
Through public statements, filings, and argument in hearings before the Court, the defense has attempted to inject into this case partisan political attacks and irrelevant and prejudicial issues that have no place in a jury trial. Although the Court can recognize these efforts for what they are and disregard them, the jury—if subjected to them—may not. The Court should not permit the defendant to turn the courtroom into a forum in which he propagates irrelevant disinformation, and should reject his attempt to inject politics into this proceeding. To ensure that the jury remains focused on its fact-finding duty and applies the law as instructed by the Court, the defendant’s improper evidence and argument should be excluded.
Can someone please inform Smith that the entire case is based on politics? He is literally facing charges for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election.
I’m new to law, but it seems to me Smith is trying to make it as hard as possible for Trump and his team to develop a defense.
It makes me think Smith knows he has nothing to convict Trump.
It also makes Smith look petty after a few hits to his case:
- Supreme Court Won’t Expedite Special Counsel’s Request to Review Trump’s Immunity Claims, Leaving it to Lower Courts for Now
- Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Over Obstruction Law Used in Jan 6 Cases, Including Trump’s case
- Appeals Court Upholds Most Of Trump Gag Order, But Allows Criticism of Special Counsel Jack Smith
For someone who preaches “facts and the law,” Smith seems to deny Trump every possibility to defend himself in court.
Political Attacks
First, we have Smith asking the judge to stop Trump “from introducing evidence, making arguments, or framing questions to advance a theory of selective or vindictive prosecution, or to otherwise improperly inject politics into the trial.”
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant tells his side of the story. The defense is allowed to use its own evidence and witnesses. The defense is supposed to poke holes in the prosecution’s case.
Smith also wants the jury to hear about Trump claiming the Democrats stole the 2012 election. He intends to bring up Trump’s claims during the 2016 campaign that the Democrats were trying to steal the election.
But I thought politics was off limits, Smith? Oh, wait. Only for Trump. How can Trump formulate a defense if Smith mentions 2012 and 2016? Sounds prejudicial to me.
To me, this motion could be filed as evidence of a political attack.
No January 6 Evidence
Then we have Smith asking the judge to exclude evidence about January 6 in a January 6 trial.
I do not like this wording because Trump has not been convicted of anything: “Throughout this litigation, and in his public comments, the defendant has sought to blame others for the attack on the Capitol for which he is responsible, including law enforcement, military forces, unidentified secret agents, and foreign influence. The defendant should be precluded from introducing within the courtroom the disinformation he has propagated outside of it.”
Denying Trump the ability to do that would make it hard for him to rebut Smith’s evidence.
I am so confused. Trump can’t bring in January 6 evidence but Smith can?
On December 11, we learned Smith has three witnesses (Expert 1, Expert 2, and Expert 3) “to testify about Trump’s movements and social media posts during the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.”
“Jack Smith got into Trump’s phone and the expert who did it will testify to the usage of these phones throughout the post-election period, including on and around January 6, 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters attacked the Capitol,” [former federal prosecutor Joyce] Vance wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
“Sounds like the government will use geolocation data from phones to show how people moved from the Ellipse to the Capitol after hearing Trump speak on January 6 and data from White House phones as well.”
Monday’s filing shows that Expert 3 “extracted and processed data from the White House cell phones used by the defendant and one other individual (Individual 1).” Expert 3 also “specifically identified the periods of time during which the defendant’s phone was unlocked, and the Twitter application was open on January 6.”
“Blame others.” If Trump’s defense finds a way to refute these witnesses by blaming others then it won’t be allowed? What if the “tracking” wasn’t actually Trump?
Potential January 6 evidence includes evidence of alleged undercover officers or government sources.
Even if Trump has evidence of such people existing, Smith wants the court to exclude it (I eliminated the citations):
Even if the defendant could provide a cogent argument for the relevance of any of this information, the Court should properly exclude it for posing “an undue risk of confusion of the issues.” Allowing the defendant to introduce evidence about undercover actors would inevitably lead to confusing minitrials on collateral issues, such as the identities and intentions of the alleged undercover actors. For example, it may require the Government to introduce evidence to show that people whom the defendant alleges were undercover actors actually were his vehement supporters. (noting that individuals Nichols claimed were government agents were actually January 6 offenders prosecuted for their conduct at the Capitol). Such evidence should therefore be excluded.
“Prohibit Cross-Examination Attempting to Elicit Irrelevant Protected Information”
Interesting section on page 19:
The Government anticipates calling witnesses with knowledge of information protected by certain privileges, including the attorney-client privilege and the Speech or Debate privilege. If questioned about such information, those witnesses reasonably could assert the privilege that attaches. The defendant should be precluded from questioning witnesses about otherwise protected information on cross-examination unless he receives pre-clearance from the Court.
I wonder who Smith will call. Lawyers? Members of Congress? Maybe he’ll call Kinzinger and Cheney.
Thoughts
I know my thoughts aren’t as valuable as Professor Jacobson but oh well!
Smith has nothing, which is why he’s trying to make it hard for Trump to defend himself. Smith knows the judge will likely grant him most of his demands.
Smith also has to know everything he has asked is ridiculous. He has to know that a “guilty” won’t hold up during the appeals process.
But it’s all about that “guilty” in court. Smith and the others don’t care about the truth or justice. They want to stop Trump because Orange Man Bad, which means determining the outcome of the election in the courts instead of the voting booths.
No comments:
Post a Comment