On March 22, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon made significant rulings regarding the handling of classified information in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump. The judge addressed requests to redact, substitute, or delete information in the classified documents, balancing the need for defense access with the sensitivity of the material.
Judge Cannon’s decision hinged on the special counsel’s representations of sensitivity and privilege in the documents. While acknowledging the burden of proof on the special counsel to withhold classified information, the judge emphasized that relevant and helpful information to the defense should still be disclosed.
In her ruling, Judge Cannon granted the special counsel’s motion regarding certain categories of documents but reserved judgment on others pending resolution of issues raised by the defense’s motions to compel discovery.
“The Court GRANTS the Special Counsel’s Motion as to Categories 3 and 4 in their entirety, as well as most of the Category 2 requests,” the judge wrote. “The Court RESERVES RULING on the entirety of Category 1 and the few remaining Category 2 requests, pending resolution of certain issues raised in Defendants’ Motions to Compel Discovery.”
The case has been marked by ongoing litigation over access to classified information, particularly allegations that President Trump retained such documents without authorization. The judge’s recent order also directed the parties to submit jury instructions and proposed verdicts on various scenarios related to proving authorization.
Notably, the judge found that Category 3 documents, related to a potential government witness, contained information relevant and helpful to the defense, allowing for summaries instead of full disclosure. Category 4 documents, deemed unrelated to charged offenses and not intended for trial use, were approved for deletion from discovery.
However, the judge reserved ruling on sensitive intelligence reports directly linked to charged documents, indicating that further hearings and rulings on related motions would be necessary.
