Former President Donald Trump’s legal team is at odds with prosecutors over the rules regarding the use of evidence in the criminal election interference case. In a court filing, Trump’s lawyers argued that the special counsel prosecutors are politically motivated and are seeking to restrict his First Amendment rights. They claim that the government is attempting to limit his rights during an election season in which false allegations have been circulated.
Prosecutors, on the other hand, have proposed a more restrictive protective order over the evidence, citing Trump’s public statements that could potentially have a negative impact on witnesses or the fair administration of justice in the case.
The disagreement between the two parties extends to the most granular details of the protective order, with Trump’s lawyers pushing for a narrower definition of “sensitive” discovery materials and wanting to expand access to certain evidentiary materials. They also recommend changes to procedures for handling non-public evidence during pre-trial proceedings and trial.
While Trump’s lawyers acknowledged the need to protect certain classes of evidence, they argue that a blanket gag order over all documents produced by the government is unnecessary. They propose a less restrictive alternative that would safeguard sensitive materials while preserving Trump’s First Amendment rights and the public’s right to access information.
The court filings also mention President Joe Biden’s comments and a meme posted on his Twitter account, which Trump’s lawyers claim show how Biden has “capitalized on the indictment.”
The dispute over the rules has resulted in bitter fights between the two parties in court filings, including disagreements over the schedule for resolving the matter.
In criminal cases, prosecutors can seek a protective order to prevent defendants from publicly discussing sensitive and confidential information obtained during discovery. Such orders aim to protect other individuals involved in the case, such as witnesses, from potential undue pressure. Unlike protective orders, which have a narrow scope, gag orders prevent defendants from speaking publicly about the pending case and are less common due to constitutional concerns.
It remains to be seen how the court will resolve the issues raised by both parties. This story will be updated with additional details as they become available.