In proceedings on October 12, 2023 in the criminal case against Donald Trump regarding national security documents, Judge Aileen Cannon continued demonstrating undisputable incompetence and bias in favor of Trump. At issue in the proceedings are motions by the federal government to ensure two criminal defendants in the case -- Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira -- are aware of a GLARING conflict of interest affecting their designated attorneys who ALSO represented other other parties who MAY be called to testify against them and merit cross examination.
Why are federal prosecutors so concerned about the competency and ethics of the lawyers for the defendants? In part, because it is part of the prosecuting attorney's professional ethics to do so and it is also of no interest to the federal government to spend time prosecuting parties to then see the prosecutions overturned because of incompetent defense attorneys. At a minimum, it wastes the public's money and the judiciary's limited resources to try a case in a way that can be immediately appealed for such obvious, avoidable process flaws.
Originally, the prosecutors filed motions stating they were not seeking the REMOVAL of these lawyers as counsel for the two defendants, only that they wanted a formal hearing to establish on the record that the defendants thoroughly understood the conflict of interest (as viewed by the prosecution) posed by their lawyers, presumably nullifying the defendants' ability to later claim defective counsel as justification for appeal or nullification of a guilty verdict.
In proceedings on October 12, federal prosecutors updated their prior filing and stated they wanted to exclude one of the lawyers, Stanley Woodward, from making closing arguments in the case if he was going to cross-examine one of his former clients, Yuscil Taveras. In response, Woodward replied he would have no problem attacking the credibility of his prior client Taveras in defense of his current clients and that he was puzzled why the prosecution had concerns and why the prosecution needed his client Walt Nauta to make a determination about his own counsel's potential conflict of interest now without knowing exactly how Nauta would fit into the larger case at trial.
Cannon apparently thought that was a very sophisticated question and chimed in with agreement, further expressing frustration at the prosecutors for this last-minute change and abruptly postponed the hearing. She admonished the prosecuting attorney, David Harbough, for "wasting the government's time" by making the request "without warning" and for failing to cite prior examples of cases handled by the Southern District of Florida to support the arguments in his filing.
The merits of the motion filed by prosecutors sound very logical. The reaction to the motion by Cannon sounds like incompetence. The root of the conflict of interest is this set of circumstances:
- Lawyer X previously represented Client Y
- X presumably has confidential info about Y that could incriminate Y
- X no longer represents Y but is still legally / ethically required to protect potential incriminating information about Y
- X now represents client Z
- Z undertook actions with Y that are involved with criminal charges
- X is required to fully defend Z to the utmost, which may include cross-examining prior client Y at trial
- even if client Z claims to understand that X might pull punches cross-examining Y which could result in a conviction of Z, they are not necessarily the only party harmed by this conflict of interest – if the case generates appeals because of this perceived conflict of interest, it wastes the time and resources of the government in achieving actual justice
In other words, this conflict of interest could lead the lawyer to protecting one client at the expense of the other – in a way where possibly only the lawyer will know who they favored. But the existence of that conflict creates doubt within the larger judicial process which depends upon believing defendants are being competently represented. That confidence is supposed to be part of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria for obtaining a criminal conviction then meting out punishment.
Cannon's response to the original motion and the update submitted October 12 indicate that concern completely escapes her comprehension. She seems put out that the prosecution called an audible when she was expecting to make a determination that now forces her to do more thinking. Her concern that the updated filing didn't cite precedents from prior trials in the Southern District of Florida is a more nuanced issue. As a non-legal expert, it seems odd that each District within the federal judiciary refers solely to precedents and practices seen in its own courts. We are one country after all.
From coverage of the drama in the courtroom, it isn't clear if prosecutors made their generic points based on precedents in other courts without citing them or if they made no references to any district precedents anywhere in the country. Regardless of the scenario, chastising the prosecutor for "wasting time" for arguments which make PERFECT logical / ethical sense seems highly inappropriate. In the context of a trial where Cannon herself has wasted so much time tolerating bogus motions from Trump which have ZERO foundation in the underlying criminal law or normal proceures, Cannon's reprimand of the prosecutor in this circumstance speaks VOLUMES about her general incompetence and her bias in the case.
At this point, with this track record to date, it is not clear at all if this trial will reach trial, much less reach a just conclusion. Cannon's conduct to date seems like she is hellbent on finding any excuse for delay and is looking for rationales to cripple key elements of the case and its prosecution.
WTH
