Woodward could not immediately be reached for comment, but he has previously indicated he would file a motion in response. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more information see our Privacy Policy. Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. Second, the conflict may cause the attorney to pull his punches,” the filing said. First, the conflict may result in the attorney’s improper use or disclosure of the client’s confidences during the cross-examination. “An attorney’s cross-examination of a former or current client raises two principal dangers. That would mean Woodward could face some limits in how vigorously he could defend Nauta at trial, since he might be obligated to stand down certain arguments he might have otherwise used to attack Taveras’s testimony during cross-examination. The court filing said that Taveras told prosecutors he was unopposed to Woodward continuing to represent Nauta, but did not consent to Woodward using or disclosing his confidential deliberations in the course of defending Nauta. The superseding indictment, filed in federal district court in Miami, added a new section titled “The Attempt to Delete Security Camera Footage” that described a scheme to wipe a server containing surveillance footage that showed boxes of classified documents being removed from the Mar-a-Lago storage room. Trump and Nauta were charged last month in a sprawling indictment that outlined how Trump retained national security documents and obstructed the government’s efforts to retrieve them with the help of Nauta, who was seen moving boxes of documents on surveillance tapes, and lied to the FBI. In the weeks that followed, Taveras decided to share more evidence with prosecutors about how Nauta and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira had asked him to delete surveillance footage – details that resulted last week in a superseding indictment against Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira. “These potential conflicts warrant a Garcia hearing.”Īt issue is Woodward’s prior representation of Taveras during the grand jury investigation earlier this year, when prosecutors concluded that Taveras had evidence that incriminated Nauta and had enough of his own legal exposure to warrant sending him a target letter.Īfter Trump and Nauta were indicted in the classified documents case on 8 June, Taveras changed lawyers and swapped out Woodward, whose legal bills were being paid by Trump’s political action committee Save America, and retained a new lawyer on 5 July. “All three of these witnesses may be witnesses for the government at trial, raising the possibility that Mr Woodward might be in the position of cross-examining past or current clients,” prosecutors wrote in the 11-page court filing.
0 kommentar(er)
