Judge sides with Trump on evidence rules in Jan. 6 trial

WASHINGTON – The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference trial agreed with the former president’s defense team Friday that “non-sensitive” evidence in the case can be made public, but warned she would take a dim view of any statements she deems likely to intimidate witnesses.

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan also ruled that the 77-year-old Trump could review sensitive grand jury testimony provided by prosecutors without his attorneys present, but could not take notes, copies, or photos of the material.

Prosecutors had tried to block the defense from sharing any evidence with the public, arguing the 45th president would use “criminal discovery for political purposes.”

Thomas Windom, arguing for the government, told Chutkan that without the protective order against Trump, the defense – which he noted was strategizing to get the case moved out of the deep-blue District – could not be stopped from “systematically and purposely” leaking key details about the case, tainting the potential jury pool.

For example, Windom said he feared Trump would run advertisements featuring court evidence and witness testimony on the city’s Metro train systems.

Chutkan initially seemed unsympathetic, stating that prosecutors had not yet proven how the release of non-sensitive information would thwart a fair trial.

However, she changed her tone when Trump’s attorney John Lauro argued that his client should be able to use non-sensitive discovery on the campaign trail to defend himself against any possible allegations made by his White House rivals.

Chutkan chided Lauro for his argument, saying her job was to “protect the integrity” of the case, and expressing concerns that Trump and the public could browbeat witnesses if the 45th president is allowed to disseminate witness statements, recordings, or identities.

“The former president of the United States who is running in a presidential campaign [would be] talking about potential witnesses who may not have the kinds of protection that he has,” the judge said in explaining the possible risk.

Chutkan ruled that prosecutors, the defense, and the court would ultimately determine which evidence qualifies as “non-sensitive,” with Windom saying such material is likely to be a fraction of the 11.6 million pages of discovery the government plans to hand over.

Windom then argued that Trump should be required to be supervised by one of his lawyers when reviewing the sensitive discovery so he does not receive “unfettered access to evidence to do with it what he wants.”

“[Trump] has shown a tendency to hold onto material that he shouldn’t,” the prosecutor said, an apparent reference to charges that the former president unlawfully hoarded national security material at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Lauro, however, argued that requiring the defense team to “babysit” Trump while he reviews discovery would unfairly bog down the attorneys.

Chutkan settled on the eyes-only plan as a “compromise,” noting that a secure facility would need to be set aside for the defendant.

“While I intend to ensure that Mr. Trump is afforded all the rights that any citizen would have,” she said, “I also take seriously what the Supreme Court [has called] a ‘carnival atmosphere of public publicity and trial by media.’”

This is a developing story; refresh the page for more.