Judge allows Trump to publicly share evidence in 2020 election case.

Trump Allowed to ​Share Non-Sensitive Evidence in Trial

A federal ‌judge on Friday ruled that former president Donald Trump will be​ allowed to publicly ⁤share some non-sensitive‌ evidence that ⁣will be used in his trial on ‍charges ⁤of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, handing his lawyers a victory.

Her ruling goes against the objections of prosecutors, ‌who said they are concerned that Trump ⁣could use details of ‌the confidential evidence to intimidate witnesses.

Judge’s Decision

U.S. District Judge Tanya⁢ Chutkan ruled‌ on Friday the ‍government had not​ met its burden to show why all of the evidence should be‌ subject to a “protective order,” which safeguards evidence from being shared with the public in order to prevent witness intimidation or ⁤tainting a jury pool.

However, she warned that Trump‌ is⁣ nevertheless subject to release conditions which ​ban him from intimidating witnesses and said she will be watching his statements and‌ “scrutinizing them very carefully.”

The government will still be ​allowed to petition ‍the court for certain pieces of evidence to ⁣be covered by the order,⁢ and Chutkan also on Friday agreed ⁢with prosecutors and rejected an‌ argument by ​Trump’s lawyers ⁢that transcripts of witness ⁢interviews are⁤ sensitive and cannot be publicly shared.

“He is ‍a criminal defendant. He is​ going to have ​restrictions like every single other​ defendant. This case⁢ is proceeding in the normal order,” Chutkan ​said.

“The fact the defendant is engaged in a political campaign is not going to allow him any greater or lesser latitude than any defendant in a criminal case.”

It ‌is standard practice for federal prosecutors to request protective orders before sharing evidence with defense lawyers ⁤to protect⁤ confidential records and ensure the integrity of‌ the⁢ trial.

Often, defense lawyers​ do not oppose them⁣ because ⁣doing so slows down the government’s production ⁣of evidence, a process known as “discovery,” to help them prepare.

But Trump’s attorneys have argued that‍ the scope⁢ of⁣ the ​protective order is too broad,‌ and would run ‍afoul of his free​ speech rights under⁢ the First Amendment of the⁣ U.S. Constitution.

“This kind of ​blanket⁤ order is extraordinary,” Trump’s⁤ lawyer John Lauro said on Friday. “We have to face the ​fact we are in⁢ uncharted waters.”

(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell)