U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon ultimately postponed a conflict-of-interest hearing for defendant Waltine Nauta, Trump’s valet who is represented by attorney Stanley Woodward.
Prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team raised fresh objections Thursday over whether Woodward should be allowed to question a key witness in the case. But Woodward told the judge that the prosecutors should have raised their arguments in court filings ahead of the hearing so he could discuss them with his client.
[...]
David Harbach, the veteran prosecutor representing the special counsel, drew Cannon’s ire after he asked her to consider barring Woodward from cross-examining “Trump Employee 4” at the trial, which is scheduled for next May.
The Mar-a-Lago employee in question, IT worker Yuscil Taveras, was previously represented by Woodward. When Woodward represented him, Taveras initially told investigators that he hadn’t heard conversations about allegedly deleting evidence in the case but then recanted his testimony after getting a public defender.
If Woodward were allowed to question Taveras, he’d be in the awkward position of asking his former client why he changed his testimony.
Politico
That's not the worst of it. He also knows things that his former client told him that put Taveras at a disadvantage before him.
Cannon, who was clearly angry, agreed and called prosecutors’ arguments a “last-minute introduction.” Cannon was appointed to the bench by Trump.
Sticking to the correct procedure would have helped all sides come prepared to discuss the objections, she said, and chastised the prosecutors for not presenting related cases to bolster their arguments.
I suppose she has a point, and I wonder why Smith's people didn't do those things.
The intent of the hearing, as Cannon explained it, was to help Nauta understand potential conflicts that might arise over the course of the trial so that he could decide whether he still wanted Woodward to represent him.
An earlier hearing with De Oliveira proceeded smoothly, with De Oliveira deciding that he wanted to proceed with his attorney, John Irving, and waive conflict-of-interest concerns. Irving previously represented three other potential witnesses in the trial, and the various parties agreed that if there were any concerns, then De Oliveira’s Florida attorney, Donald Morrell, could cross-examine those particular witnesses.
[...]
Cannon laid out various scenarios to de Oliveira on Thursday about possible conflict of interest issues that might emerge and warned the defendant that Irving could have “divided loyalties” that might prevent him from poking holes in witnesses testimony.
She repeatedly told De Oliveira that he could take more time to make a decision and warned he could not use the conflict-of-interest argument in a potential appeal.
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment