Federal Judge Requires Former President Trump to Declare Defense Strategy in Election-Subversion Case
ICARO Media Group
Former President Donald Trump has been instructed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to formally declare whether he intends to argue an advice-of-counsel defense strategy in the Washington, D.C. election-subversion case. The judge's ruling came on Wednesday, partially granting a motion by Special Counsel Jack Smith's office. This order requires Trump to file the formal notice by January 15, 2024.
An advice-of-counsel defense involves a defendant claiming that they acted in good faith based on the advice of their lawyers and made full disclosure of relevant facts before receiving that advice. The defense seeks to establish that the defendant believed their actions were legal due to their legal counsel's guidance.
Smith's office, in their motion submitted on October 10, cited instances where Trump's current defense attorneys publicly stated that the former president was acting on the advice of his legal team following the 2020 presidential election. The motion argued that when a defendant invokes such a defense in court, they waive attorney-client privilege for all communications related to that defense. This would entitle the government to additional discovery and the ability to conduct further investigations, potentially leading to more litigation and briefings.
Judge Chutkan's order highlighted that there is no explicit requirement for advance notice of an advice-of-counsel defense under local and federal criminal rules. However, she determined that due to the arguments made by Trump's defense team in public interviews, the government should be allowed to pursue further investigations and discovery.
The deadline for Trump to submit the declaration of his defense strategy is now set for January 15, 2024. This development adds another layer of complexity to the election-subversion case and raises the possibility of more legal proceedings surrounding the advice-of-counsel defense. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for Trump and may lead to further scrutiny of his actions following the 2020 presidential election.