As a condition of not seeking pretrial detention, Trump agreed that he would not attempt to intimidate or threaten prosecution witnesses.
A federal judge ruled today that former US President Donald Trump is allowed to release some “non-sensitive” evidence that will be used in his trial to try to overturn the 2020 election, vindicating his lawyers.
Judge Tanya Chatkan overruled objections from prosecutors who worried that Trump could use some of the classified evidence to intimidate prosecution witnesses. They cited as evidence a “threatening” message posted last week by the former president on a social media platform. Chatkan ruled that the government had not shown why a “protective order” should be issued for all but the evidence.
But he warned Trump not to make incendiary statements about the case, stressing that he will take “whatever steps he deems necessary to ensure the integrity” of this case. He also reminded that Trump remains free on the condition that he does not intimidate witnesses and said that he will monitor his statements and “consider them very carefully.”
As a condition of not seeking pretrial detention, Trump agreed that he would not attempt to intimidate or threaten prosecution witnesses.
Chatkan also agreed with prosecutors, rejecting Trump’s lawyers’ argument that the hundreds of witness statements, audio evidence and other documents are “sensitive” and cannot be released. Trump “is charged with a criminal offense. He will be subject to restrictions, just like any other defendant. This case is proceeding as normal. The fact that the defendant is campaigning will not give him more or less freedom of movement than any other defendant in a criminal case,” he added.
It’s common practice for federal prosecutors to seek a “protective order” before sharing evidence with defendants’ attorneys, to prevent confidential records from being leaked and to ensure the integrity of the trial.
Defense attorneys often do not object in order to avoid delaying the prosecution’s disclosure of evidence and to give them time to prepare. But Trump’s lawyers argued that the purpose of the protective order violated his right to free speech protected by the Constitution.
Source :Skai
With a wealth of experience honed over 4+ years in journalism, I bring a seasoned voice to the world of news. Currently, I work as a freelance writer and editor, always seeking new opportunities to tell compelling stories in the field of world news.
