The judge overseeing the classified docs case against former President Donald Trump declined on Thursday his motion to dismiss based on the Presidential Records Act (PRA).
Trump asked in February to dismiss the case based on the PRA, which his attorneys argued confers “unreviewable discretion on President Trump to designate the records at issue as personal.” Cannon found that the PRA did not provide a “pre-trial basis to dismiss,” noting that Counts 1-32 of the indictment “make no reference” to the act.
“More generally, the Superseding Indictment specifies the nature of the accusations against Defendant Trump in a lengthy speaking indictment with embedded excerpts from investigative interviews, photographs, and other content,” she wrote. “For these reasons, accepting the allegations of the Superseding Indictment as true, the Presidential Records Act does not provide a pre-trial basis to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3)(B)(v)—either as to Counts 1 through 32 or as to the remaining counts, all of which state cognizable offenses.”
Special Counsel Jack Smith rebuked Cannon in a motion Wednesday for an order instructing parties to file proposed jury instructions engaging with two scenarios involving the Presidential Records Act. He said the order rested on the same “fundamentally flawed legal premise” in Trump’s motion to dismiss and asked her to make her decision on the legal theory clear, threatening to appeal if she disagreed with the government’s view.
Judge Cannon rejects Jack Smith’s demand to rule promptly on the jury instruction, calling it “unprecedented and unjust.” pic.twitter.com/FuPqXhVQCu
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff) April 4, 2024
Cannon called Smith’s demand “unprecedented and unjust,” noting that her order was not an indication of her view of Trump’s defense.
“The Court’s Order soliciting preliminary draft instructions on certain counts should not be misconstrued as declaring a final definition on any essential element or asserted defense in this case,” Cannon wrote. “Nor should it be interpreted as anything other than what it was: a genuine attempt, in the context of the upcoming trial, to better understand the parties’ competing positions and the questions to be submitted to the jury in this complex case of first impression.”
“As always, any party remains free to avail itself of whatever appellate options it sees fit to invoke, as permitted by law,” she wrote.
All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Jack Smith, Fani Willis forced to defend Trump prosecutions in simultaneous testimonies - December 18, 2025
- Exclusive: Biden State Dept. appeared to ignore emails from would-be Trump assassin - December 16, 2025
- Trump DOJ seeks to block officials from testifying in Judge Boasberg probe - December 12, 2025
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
