Special prosecutor Jack Smith has urged the federal judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case in Florida to clarify recent instructions provided to parties. Smith’s request stems from concerns regarding the instructions issued by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in March, which called for proposals for jury instructions from both prosecutors and the defendant’s lawyers.
Judge Cannon’s instructions asked for “alternative draft text” assuming two “competing scenarios” related to the Presidential Records Act (PRA). However, Smith and his team argue that both scenarios rely on a “fundamentally flawed legal premise.” They contend that the distinction between personal and presidential records under the PRA is irrelevant to Trump’s charges under the Espionage Act.
In their filing, prosecutors emphasized the need for prompt resolution of the legal question surrounding the PRA’s impact on the case. They warned that any delay in addressing this fundamental issue could significantly prolong the trial and hinder the government’s ability to seek review before jeopardy attaches.
“Based on the current record, the PRA should not play any role at trial at all,” they wrote, urging Judge Cannon to “decide whether the unstated legal premise underlying the recent order does, in the Court’s view, represent ‘a correct formulation of the law.’”
Smith’s team cited a ruling by an appeals court in a separate case to underscore the importance of addressing the legal question promptly. They indicated that if Judge Cannon were to wrongly decide on the issue, the government might seek intervention from a higher court.
In response, Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump had exclusive authority under the PRA to categorize records during his presidency. They asserted that there is no basis for questioning Trump’s document-specific PRA categorizations.
