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.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Smell the stank of Desperation
Who else thinks that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate Jack Smith?
To be honest (IANAL) I’d just as soon declare him guilty in a kangaroo court and put him in prison for about 20 years.
But that’s just me. The left needs to get a really, really, REALLY big dose of what they’ve dealt out to conservatives.
You left out about a dozen totally appropriate “reallys” in that post. The pendulum needs to swing so hard the other way that they’re crushed against a wall.
Bring back some English punishment.
Hanged, drawn, and quartered.
https://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/hanging-drawing-and-quartering.htm
No, just determine him to be guilty and throw his ass in prison. That’s what he wants to do to Trump.
Another Judge Karl Freisler
Trump says that he has videos of all of the illegal “raids” that they did on his resort in Florida, where they found many boxes of highly classified information in his bathroom next to his toilet He said that the photos were all staged by his opponents. OK. It has been several years since then. If he has these videos which would exonerate him, then why the hell hasn’t he released them to the public so that we can see them? Why? Also, the new Speaker of the House, who is a Trump supporter, has said that he would release all of the hundreds/thousands of hours of videos of the J6 insurrection which would show that there was no insurrection. Tucker Carlson also said that he would do this, but he never did. So why the hell haven’t Carlson or Johnson done this? Why don’t they release all of these videos so that we can watch them? Why? What are they trying to hide? Don’t we deserve to watch for ourselves what happened on J6? Are Trump supporters and Tucker Carlson supporters trying to stop us from watching what really happened on Jan 6?
Johnson released 44,000 hours of tape from J6 in Nov, JR. You were probably still in mourning that your boy, RINO Kev, was bounced from the speaker’s chair and missed it. Weird that you failed to mention him since he promised to release them in February.
So guilty until proven innocent?
Only JR demands guilty until proven innocent. My guess? JR is Jack Smith.
I think you’ve mixed up the various cases. This post is about the case where somehow he incited an insurrection by giving a speech about being peaceful and patriotic. The case you refer to, about some boxes he was storing, is still pending. Why would he release anything outside of the trial? I don’t think most lawyers would advise that, save it for the courtroom.
JR is trying to outdo Kamala in the word salad department.
He’s doing a great job.
“The Man”, which in this case is the Democrat weaponised FBI, has already confiscated the video you want released sweet darling.
Yes let’s have it released but you’re gonna need your Democrat friends to release that video for us all.
Why do idiots like you keep wanting to play this false game?
Operative word: idiot.
Basically, Smith is asking the judge to tell Trump he can only use prosecution approved defenses. That’s American right? After all, doesn’t the constitution say a defendant has the right to a jury trial as long as he uses prosecution-approved defenses?
Smith should be roundly and brutally sanctioned for proffering such a despicable, un-American argument.
BINGO. It’s disgusting.
Not prosecution-approved, but court-approved. The prosecutor is asking the court not to approve such arguments, as is his right; the defense can argue the opposite, and then it’s up to the court to decide.
It’s not at all uncommon for a court to forbid the defense from raising arguments that are legally irrelevant, but might confuse the jury. Things the jury is not allowed to take into account, but might do so anyway if it heard them. That’s what Smith is alleging about these arguments.
For instance, selective prosecution is legally irrelevant. If the evidence shows he’s guilty then he’s guilty, even if nobody else is ever prosecuted for doing the same thing. But a jury might well feel otherwise about it, and ignore the judge’s instructions that it’s irrelevant, so the judge could well decide that the jury shouldn’t be allowed to hear such arguments in the first place.
You are spouting legalese nonsense. American juries are supposed to be able to judge for themselves what is relevant to a case and what is not, even to deciding that the law cited by the prosecution should not apply. I do not believe it is in the people’s interest that anything offered as a defense in a criminal trial be excluded. A judge can always instruct a jury as to what should be relevant under the law, but it is up to the jury to decide and issue a verdict as they see fit. Any thing else comes from government bureaucrats f’ing up a good system for their own advantage, not the people’s.
Who are you? What are you talking about? Do you care about the constitution, the rule of law, and justice for all? Because it sure sounds like you don’t. It sounds like you like justice for you and your friends, and injustice for everyone else.
“selective prosecution is legally irrelevant”. You clearly don’t believe in justice for all. If Trump proves that there is selective prosecution. If he can prove that conservatives are prosected relentlessly and mercilessly even if it’s technically to the fullest extent of the law, but liberals who commit far worse crimes are prosecuted lightly or not at all,
Then a jury is certainly within its right to tell the state: “No! Absolutely not. It’s not fair for the state to only prosecute conservatives but to let liberals go free. No, we the jury will not put up with it and we find Trump innocent!”
That’s why we have jury trials. You know that. You just don’t care. You don’t care about justice for all. You care about justice for you and your friends, and injustice for everyone else.
What you would like the law to be is not relevant. All that matters is what the law actually is, and the law actually is that juries are not entitled to take into account matters that the law says are irrelevant, and while judges can let them hear it and then tell them to ignore it, they can also prevent them from hearing it in the first place. This is common and accepted practice in all courts.
Consider a criminal defendant’s prior convictions. According to you the prosecution should be able to tell the jury all about the defendant’s history; but the fact is that no court will ever allow them to do so unless they first demonstrate, out of the jury’s hearing, how it could be relevant. Merely saying “He’s done this five times before, so the jury is entitled to find it more likely that he would do it again” won’t fly unless the defense opens the door by claiming that he is the kind of person who would never do such a thing. Do you disagree with that?! Do you think judges should not have the authority to exclude such things?! Even if you do think that, the law says otherwise.
Yep, so a good judge would throw Smiths case out the door because all his pleadings are political based.
Wrong! Juries can take into account anything it so chooses,..ever hear of jury nullification?
That’s not the argument you started with.
“The pages of history shine on instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard uncontradicted evidence and instructions of the judge.”
U.S. v Dougherty, 1972
No, GWB, it is exactly the argument I started with. Juries are required to disregard irrelevant arguments, and to make sure they do so the court is entitled to prevent them from hearing such arguments. Selective prosecution is legally irrelevant and not a defense, just as prior convictions are legally irrelevant and not grounds for conviction. Smith is trying to get the judge to make such a ruling here, as is his right; it’s the judge’s job to say no.
Since potentially (real) exculpatory evidence for denied defense attorneys in other J6 trials, Smith is asking for the same choice of evidence. By the way… he will get what he wants… it’s D.C..
We all know what he’s up to, but dging is challenging the entire concept of excluding evidence or arguments. dging thinks it’s “un-American” to hide anything from a jury, or to restrict a party’s arguments in any way. That must apply to both the prosecution and the defense. And that is wrong.
It is always amazing to watch you swoop in to defend everything that is wrong with the system.
Do you not understand how disallowing information is wrong?
Particularly something like ‘this person is on trial for X, he has been convicted of X nine times before.
Or “we are charging tis person with this crime and issuing a summary judgement of guilt. The judge knows the defendant is guilty because the judge has committed this crime himself but was not prosecuted for it despite it being common knowledge that he has committed this crime and is intending to do so again.’
This is what you are DEFENDING.
No, you idiot, The law is directly against you. There is no dispute about this. Prior convictions are not admissible, and if a judge allows them in and the person is convicted that is a reversible error. Juries are not allowed to hear everything. And the same rule that applies to the prosecution applies also to the defense; the judge can prevent the defense from telling the jury things that it shouldn’t hear. For instance that the alleged victim was a terrible person who richly deserved whatever it is that he’s alleged to have got; that’s something the jury is not entitled to know, lest they acquit the defendant just because they hate the victim.
And here you go again, defending the indefensible–
“No, you idiot, The law is directly against you. There is no dispute about this. Prior convictions are not admissible, and if a judge allows them in and the person is convicted that is a reversible error. Juries are not allowed to hear everything.”
WHY is it inadmissible to tell a jury that a thief has thieved before?
What set of fools decided that addressing recidivism was outside the bounds of justice?
Leftists
Why is it permissible to conceal information from the jury?
Who thought THAT was a good idea?
Leftists.
How did I know you would show up trying to defend the indefensible?
So now the standard, universally agreed-on law is indefensible?!
“For instance, selective prosecution is legally irrelevant. ”
Yeah, let’s ignore that whole “equal justice under law” thing.
Can’t wait until it ships you to the gulag.
If you’re claiming that selective prosecution is a valid defense, you’re simply wrong. The law says it isn’t.
Another idiot who wants to play the false game. When the center doesn’t hold, it’s because of people like this.
Egad, you descended into pedantry, again. And it revealed a severe case of dumb.
It’s part of the Democratic system – by which I mean the Democratic Party system
That’s what Fed judge Carl Nichols did to Steve Bannon, would not allow a defense
Nichols was bound by Licavoli v USA. Do you dispute that under this precedent advice of counsel is not a valid defense? Or are you claiming that despite it being invalid Nichols should have allowed him to make it anyway?
Nichols is about as conservative as any judge can be. He is the only judge who has thrown out the bogus “obstruction” charges against Jan-6-2021 defendants. He clerked for Thomas and Silbermann. There is no possible judge Bannon could have drawn who would have been be better for him.
Legal considerations aside, this is before a partial D.C. jury and partial D.C. judge, so it doesn’t matter what evidence is admitted or arguments are made at trial. He will be convicted, regardless. I apologize for stating the obvious.
Why aren’t his attorneys at SCOTUS demanding that Chutkan be disqualified per 28 USC s 455 and a change of venue?
I’m confused, isn’t the case now pending before the appeals court to determine if former government officials or office-holders have immunity after they leave?
At the same time Smith is arguing that, he also may be arguing that Cheney or Kinzinger have immunity? I understand that we don’t know if Smith’s witnesses are no longer in office, but the irony if it is someone like that!
The left never stops amd Jack Smith is a prick of the highest order
What happened to the stay. They’re needling Trump.
Read the first footnote for sleazy Jack’s mealy-mouthed justification for filing this now. He’s got to give Chutkin’s clerks something to cut-and-paste for near next opinion.
Democrats’ one and only debating point is “shut up.”
Why should Jack Smith be different?
This is you admitting you have no idea what’s going on. The evidence against Trump is overwhelming and his only tactic is to throw as manner frivolous questions to the court as he can. Delay Delay Delay. That’s literally all he has. MAGA nuts always projecting
The essence of effective criminal defense is (1) aggressive cross-examination to discredit witnesses as well as their testimony, through which is sketched (2) alternate scenarios that portray forces other than the defendant as responsible for those undisputed facts of the crime. By not charging Trump with insurrection or as conspiring to cause the J6 riots, but somehow still interfering with the Electoral ballot count, Smith is saying that context surrounding the acts charged is irrelevant. He is trying to preclude the fundamental defense tactic of presenting even the most far-fetched alternate scenarios.. Former public defender Chutkan of course will abandon this precept because all means necessary must be employed against Der Fuehrer.
Smith and his henchmen should be severely sanctioned for filing this while the case is stayed. The clearly try to increase the burden of litigation directly contrary to the law that halts all proceedings during the immunity appeal.
There is no such law.
Yes there is, otherwise proceedings would not be stayed. You may be confused about the meaning of the word law, but that is your problem. Please refrain from posting more of your missing-the-wood-for-the-trees commentary
There is no requirement for Smith to stop working only that the Court isn’t advancing. The Defence is well within its rights to sit on anything issued to it, but that is it. The burden of litigation isn’t increasing its Smith continuing as per the court schedule prior the stay to try and keep it on track. You know to get to trial so that Trump can prove his innocence. Of course Trump doesn’t actually believe he is innocent hence his frivolous actions.
They say in their very first footnote “Nonetheless, to provide the Court and defendant notice” with emphasis on “provide the defendant notice.”
This is exactly impsoing the burden of litsigation. That is was lawfare is about. But, I gues, if you want to side with Citizen Jack Smith,mthat ismyour prerogative…
Bigger problem will Chutkan do what Smith wants?
Think I would give that a %45 chance
Much higher, she doesn’t give a crap about the actual law
Trump should subpoena the FBI to produce the agents they had in the crowd, if the FBI refuses the trial is over.
No, it isn’t.
Milhouse is OK with a hack judge who has already found Trump guilty (as proven by her previous comments), a questionable “special counsel” who wants to prevent a defendant from presenting evidence, and a jury pool that is predominantly if not completely against the defendant.
Yeah, Milhouse. We got a fair trial going on here.
Milhouse is correctly stating the law. He never said he likes it.
I never said he likes it. I said he’s OK with it.
AF_Chief_Master_Sgt is OK with Boulder’s false claim that “if the FBI refuses, the trial is over”. That proves that like many commenters here, AF_Chief_Master_Sgt couldn’t give a shit about the truth.
The state failing to provide possibly exculpatory evidence is not just illegal, it’s evil.
First Trump would have to establish that. You don’t just get to haul the FBI into court, or to get an automatic dismissal if they don’t come. If it were that simple every criminal defendant would do it.
Jack doesn’t need evidence. He’s got a DC jury pool to convict Trump. The trial is just a formality.
I don’t recall seeing it mentioned here. (I may be mistaken)
During the recent supreme court rejection, Former AG Ed Meese, and others, filed a brief that basically says that Smith was illegally appointed and has no authority at all.
Look for that to blow up next year.
I heard something about that too… interesting..
No, it’ll be ignored because it’s inconvenient to the powers that be that support the pedophile in the White House
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdnGsmMd2Cs&t=1188s
It’s the Alice in Wonderland courtroom scene.
As a trial lawyer I try to always remember that a big part of my job is to make sure that I protect my case from reversible error. It is pointless to win at the trial court by leading the judge into making a ruling that results in a reversal on appeal. Smith had his conviction of Bob McDonnell reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court. Apparently he is a slow learner.
Smith is doing exactly what he is told to do.
Who is gonna reverse anything Chutkan does to Trump, certainly not the corrupt as Chutkan DC Court of Appeals, do you thing Roberts will let SCOTUS save Trump?
This not about the law or its procedures. It’s about getting Trump off the ballot. If Smith succeeds in getting a conviction that results in Trump not being president, I guarantee you Smith won’t even show up for the appeal.
God forbid the Trump might have a defense at his trial. Stalin would be proud
When I saw this headline elsewhere I was sure it must be the Babylon Bee.
Satire doesn’t stand a chance.
Smith basically wants the case tried on the findings on the extremely partisan 1..6. committee findings which had no rights of cross examination of witnesses and selectively presented documents that had been highly redacted and which failed to investigate such issues as the failurre to call out the National Guard beforehand
applies the law as instructed by the Court
This still bugs the heck out of me. Why should the jury not apply the law as written? Shouldn’t the law be written in a fashion it can be applied facially by the jury? Definitions should play a part, sure, but if the law has to be interpreted for the jury, then the law isn’t very good, is it?
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
–JAMES MADISON
Smith makes Javert look honorable
The risk taken by the Establishment in putting Trump on trial is broadcasting the sworn testimony of members of Congress, the Capitol Police, the FBI and the news media that would be an inevitable result of routine rebuttal available by constitutional right to the defense.
Smith is begging the court to disallow any rebuttal as disinformation and partisan political attacks. It’s not only that he doesn’t have a case, it’s that his case can cause grief for the political class and the deep state as they would have to answer under oath. He is protecting them first and foremost.
As far as his case goes, he will get a conviction regardless because : a) it’s a DC jury and b) the judge’s instructions to the jury will all but cement a conviction. So it’s not about that at all.
In all criminal cases presented in a Peoples’ Court in a dictatorship of the proletariat; any “defense” presented by the defendant MUST include an element of confession of guilt and a profession of remorse, whether forcibly extracted from the defendant or inserted by the Peoples’ Prosecutor. See Article 58:10.
Subotai Bahadur
When hearings start, everyone will see Smith hop into court and pull his briefcase from his pouch.