Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, [105] Opinion and Order, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid on 10/17/2023 as to DONALD J. TRUMP re [106] Notice of Appeal - Interlocutory. (zhsj)
Page 1 APPEAL,CAT B
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:23−cr−00257−TSC−Case title: USA v. TRUMP
Date Filed: 08/01/
Assigned to: Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan
Defendant (1)
DONALD J. TRUMP
represented by John F. Lauro
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa Street
15th Floor
Tampa, FL (813) 222−Fax: (813) 222−Email: jlauro@laurosinger.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Emil Bove
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall Street, Suite New York, NY 212−716−Email: emil.bove@blanchelaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Filzah I. Pavalon
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa Street
15th Floor
Tampa, FL (813) 222−Fax: (813) 222−Email: fpavalon@laurosinger.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Todd Blanche
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall Street
New York, NY (212) 716− Page 2 Email: toddblanche@blanchelaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice
Pending Counts
Disposition
18 U.S.C. 371; CONSPIRACY
TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud
the United States
(1)
18 U.S.C. 1512(k);
TAMPERING WITH WITNESS,
VICTIM, OR AN INFORMANT;
Conspiracy to Obstruct an
Official Proceeding
(2)
18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), 2;
TAMPERING WITH A
WITNESS, VICTIM OR
INFORMANT; Obstruction of,
and Attempt to Obstruct, an
Official Proceeding
(3)
18 U.S.C. 241; CONSPIRACY
AGAINST RIGHTS OF
CITIZENS; Conspiracy Against
Rights
(4)
Highest Offense Level
(Opening)
Felony
Terminated Counts
Disposition
None
Highest Offense Level
(Terminated)
None
Complaints
Disposition
None Page 3 Plaintiff
USA
represented by J.P. Cooney
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC (202) 252−Email: joseph.cooney@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant U.S. Attorney
James Pearce
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CRIMINAL DIVISION APPELLATE
SECTION
Department of Justice, Criminal Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite Washington, DC (202) 532−Fax: (202) 305−Email: james.pearce@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant U.S. Attorney
Molly Gulland Gaston
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC (202) 252−Email: molly.gaston@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant U.S. Attorney
Thomas Windom
555 Fourth Street NW
Washington, DC 202−252−Email: thomas.windom@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant U.S. Attorney
Date Filed
#
Docket Text
08/01/
INDICTMENT as to DONALD J. TRUMP (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, 4. (zltp) (Entered:
08/01/2023) Page 4 08/01/
MOTION to Seal Case by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Text
of Proposed Order)(zltp) (Entered: 08/01/2023)
08/01/
ORDER granting 3 Motion to Seal Case as to DONALD J. TRUMP (1). Signed by
Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya on 8/1/2023. (zltp) (Entered: 08/01/2023)
08/01/
Case unsealed as to DONALD J. TRUMP (zltp) (Entered: 08/01/2023)
08/03/
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: John F. Lauro appearing for DONALD
J. TRUMP (Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/03/2023)
08/03/
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Todd Blanche Filing fee $ 100, receipt
number ADCDC−10252226. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro,
John) (Entered: 08/03/2023)
08/03/
Summons Returned Executed on 8/3/2023 as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (ztl) (Entered:
08/04/2023)
08/03/
MINUTE ORDER as to Donald J. Trump: As required by Rule 5(f), the United States
is ordered to produce all exculpatory evidence to the defendant pursuant to Brady v.
Maryland and its progeny. Not doing so in a timely manner may result in sanctions,
including exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges and
contempt proceedings.Signed by Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya on
8/3/2023. (ztl) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
08/03/
ORAL MOTION for Speedy Trial by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (ztl) (Entered:
08/04/2023)
08/03/
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya:
Return on Summons/Initial Appearance/Arraignment as to Counts 1,2,3,4 held on
8/3/2023. Plea of Not Guilty entered as to all counts. The Court advised the
Government of its due process obligation under Rule 5(f).Status Conference set for
8/28/2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9− In Person before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan.
Bond Status of Defendant: Defendant Remain on Personal Recognizance; Court
Reporter: Jeff Hook; Defense Attorney: John Lauro and Todd Blanche; US Attorney:
Thomas Windom and Molly Gaston; Pretrial Officer: Takeysha Robinson. (ztl)
(Entered: 08/04/2023)
08/03/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: A status conference will be held in
this matter on August 28, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan. The court waives the requirement for Defendant to appear at that
conference. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file any motion for
excluding the time until the next status conference from the Speedy Trial Act clock by
August 8, 2023; and that the government shall file any opposition to that motion by
August 13, 2023. It is FURTHER ORDERED that by August 10, 2023, the
government shall file a brief proposing a trial date and providing an estimate of the
time required to set forth the prosecution's case in chief during that trial; and that by
August 17, 2023, Defendant shall file a response brief likewise proposing a trial date
and estimating, to the extent possible, the time required to set forth the defense at trial.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/3/2023. (ztl) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
08/03/
08/04/
ORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to DONALD J. TRUMP (1) Personal
Recognizance. Signed by Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya on 8/3/2023.
(Attachment: # 1 Appearance Bond) (znjb) (Entered: 08/07/2023) Page 5 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filzah I. Pavalon Filing fee $ 100,
receipt number ADCDC−10255735. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DONALD J. TRUMP.
(Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
08/04/
MOTION for Protective Order by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: #
1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
08/05/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by 5:PM on August 7, 2023, Defendant shall file a response to the government's 10 Motion
for Protective Order, stating Defendant's position on the Motion. If Defendant
disagrees with any portion of the government's proposed Protective Order, ECF No.
10−1, his response shall include a revised version of that Protective Order with any
modifications in redline. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/05/2023. (lcss)
(Entered: 08/05/2023)
08/05/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting 9 Motion for Leave to
Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filzah I. Pavalon is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in
this matter on behalf of Defendant. Counsel should register for e−filing via PACER
and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCrR 44.5(a). Click for instructions.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/05/2023. (lcss) (Entered: 08/05/2023)
08/05/
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 10 MOTION for
Protective Order , MOTION for Hearing by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # Text of Proposed Order)(Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/05/2023)
08/05/
RESPONSE by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 11 MOTION for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply as to 10 MOTION for Protective Order MOTION for
Hearing (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/05/2023)
08/05/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant's 11 Motion for Extension
of Time is hereby DENIED. Defendant may continue to confer with the government
regarding its proposed protective order before or after the August 7, 2023 5:00 PM
deadline for his response. The court will determine whether to schedule a hearing to
discuss the proposed protective order after reviewing Defendant's response and, if
included, his revised proposed protective order with modifications in redline. Signed
by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/05/2023. (lcss) (Entered: 08/05/2023)
08/06/
Set/Reset Deadline as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant shall file a response to the
government's 10 Motion for Protective Order, stating Defendant's position on the
Motion by 5:00 PM on August 7, 2023. If Defendant disagrees with any portion of the
government's proposed Protective Order, (Dkt. #10−1), his response shall include a
revised version of that Protective Order with any modifications in redline. (jth)
(Entered: 08/06/2023)
08/07/
RESPONSE by DONALD J. TRUMP re 10 MOTION for Protective Order (Lauro,
John) (Entered: 08/07/2023)
08/07/
REPLY in Support by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 10 MOTION for Protective
Order (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/07/2023)
08/07/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of the
government's 10 Motion for Protective Order and Defendant's 14 Response, as well as
the government's 15 Reply, the court will schedule a hearing on the parties' respective
proposals. The court will waive the requirement of Defendant's appearance.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that no later than 3:00 PM on August 8, 2023, Page 6 the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint notice of two dates and times on or
before August 11, 2023 when both parties are available for a hearing. Signed by Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/07/2023. (lcss) (Entered: 08/07/2023)
08/08/
08/08/
Set/Reset Deadline as to DONALD J. TRUMP: by 3:00 PM on 8/8/2023, the parties
shall meet and confer and file a joint notice of two dates and times on or before
8/11/2023 when both parties are available for a hearing. (jth) (Entered: 08/08/2023)
TRANSCRIPT OF RETURN ON SUMMONS/INITIAL
APPEARANCE/ARRAIGNMENT in case as to DONALD J. TRUMP before
Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya held on August 3, 2023. Page Numbers: 1 −
24. Date of Issuance: August 8, 2023. Court Reporter: Jeff Hook. Contact
Information: 202−354−3373 | jeff_hook@dcd.uscourts.gov. Transcripts may be
ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above.
After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats,
(multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one
days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal
identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be
made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy,
which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our
website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 8/29/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/8/2023.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/6/2023.(Hook, Jeff) (Entered: 08/08/2023)
08/08/
08/08/
08/08/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The court hereby schedules a hearing
on the parties' respective protective order proposals in this matter on August 11, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9. The requirement of Defendant's appearance is waived
for this hearing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/08/2023. (lcc) (Entered:
08/08/2023)
08/09/
08/09/
08/09/
NOTICE by the Parties in Response to Court's August 7, 2023 Minute Order by USA
as to DONALD J. TRUMP re Order,, (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/08/2023)
MOTION to Exclude Time Under Speedy Trial Act by DONALD J. TRUMP.
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Lauro, John) (Entered:
08/08/2023)
Set/Reset Hearing as to DONALD J. TRUMP: A Hearing on the Parties' Respective
Protective Order Proposals is set for August 11, 2023, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9.
before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. The requirement of Defendant's appearance is waived
for this hearing. (jth) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE Updated Certificate of Good Standing by
DONALD J. TRUMP re 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Todd
Blanche Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC−10252226. Fee Status: Fee Paid.
(Lauro, John) Modified on 8/9/2023 (zhsj). (Entered: 08/09/2023)
NOTICE OF ERROR as to DONALD J. TRUMP regarding 19 Notice (Other). The
following error(s) need correction: Incorrect format (Letter)− correspondence is not Page 7 permitted (LCrR 49(f)(4)). Please refile as a Notice of Filing attaching your
Certificate of Good Standing to a Notice of Filing Document Containing the Caption
of the Court. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
08/09/
08/09/
NOTICE of Filing by DONALD J. TRUMP re 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro
Hac Vice Todd Blanche Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC−10252226. Fee
Status: Fee Paid. (Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting 7 Motion for Leave to
Appear Pro Hac Vice Counsel should register for e−filing via PACER and file a
notice of appearance pursuant to LCrR 44.5(a). Click for instructions as to
DONALD J. TRUMP (1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya on
8/9/2023. (zcll) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
08/09/
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Filzah Pavalon appearing for DONALD
J. TRUMP (Pavalon, Filzah) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
08/10/
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Gregory M. Singer Filing fee $ 100,
receipt number ADCDC−10266892. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DONALD J. TRUMP.
(Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/10/
RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re
Order,,,, Set Deadlines,,, Government's Response to Court's August 3, 2023 Minute
Order (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/10/
MOTION for Hearing Pursuant to Classified Information Procedures Act by USA as
to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Windom,
Thomas) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/10/
Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re Motion for
Speedy Trial, 18 Motion to Exclude (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/10/
08/10/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting 22 Motion for Leave to
Appear Pro Hac Vice. Gregory M. Singer is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in
this matter on behalf of Defendant. Counsel should register for e−filing via PACER
and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCrR 44.5(a). Click for instructions.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/10/2023. (lcc) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Todd Blanche appearing for DONALD
J. TRUMP (Blanche, Todd) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/10/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The government's 24 Sealed Motion
for Leave to Submit Exhibit Ex Parte and Under Seal is hereby DENIED without
prejudice. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/10/2023. (zjd) (Entered:
08/10/2023)
08/11/
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan: Hearing on the
Parties' Respective Protective Order Proposals as to DONALD J. TRUMP held on
8/11/2023. The Court shall issue a protective order consistent with the rulings made
on the record. Oral Order of the Court granting Government's 25 Motion for Pretrial
Conference Pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act. This hearing shall
proceed on August 28, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan. Bond Status of Defendant: remains on Personal Recognizance; Court
Reporter: Bryan A. Wayne; Defense Attorneys: John F. Lauro, Gregory M. Singer,
and Todd Blanche; US Attorneys: Thomas Windom and Molly G. Gaston. (zjd)
(Entered: 08/11/2023) Page 8 08/11/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The government's 25 Motion for
Hearing Pursuant to Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) is GRANTED.
Defense counsel consented to the motion during the August 11, 2023 hearing.
Accordingly, the court will hold a hearing pursuant to CIPA Section 2 during the
status conference currently scheduled for August 28, 2023. Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 8/11/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 08/11/2023)
08/11/
PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCOVERY AND AUTHORIZING
DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY as to DONALD J. TRUMP.
Consistent with the rulings made on the record during the hearing on August 11,
2023, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Government's 10 Motion for
Protective Order. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/11/2023. (zjd) (Entered:
08/11/2023)
08/11/
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON PROTECTIVE ORDER in case as to DONALD J.
TRUMP before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan held on August 11, 2023; Page Numbers:
1−73. Date of Issuance: 8/11/2023. Court Reporter: Bryan A. Wayne. Transcripts may
be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above.
After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats,
(multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one
days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal
identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be
made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy,
which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our
website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 9/1/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/11/2023.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/9/2023.(Wayne, Bryan) (Main Document
29 replaced on 8/23/2023) (zhsj). (Entered: 08/11/2023)
08/17/
RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT by DONALD J. TRUMP re Order,,,, Set
Deadlines,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/17/2023)
08/21/
MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP.
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Windom, Thomas)
(Entered: 08/21/2023)
08/21/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The government's 31 Motion for
Leave to File Reply is hereby GRANTED. The government may file a reply in
support of its brief proposing a trial date by August 22, 2023. The reply brief shall be
limited to six pages. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zjd) (Entered:
08/21/2023)
08/21/
08/21/
RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re
Order,,,, Set Deadlines,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Set/Reset Deadlines,
(Reply Brief) (Windom, Thomas) (Entered: 08/21/2023) Page 9 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Motion of D.A. Feliciano for Leave to File Amicus
Curiae Brief Supporting Neither Plaintiff Nor Defendant as to DONALD J. TRUMP.
"This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts have in
rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
08/21/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion for Judicial Notice Affidavit of Victor Shorkin
as to DONALD J. TRUMP. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its
filing. "This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts
have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in
criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
08/21/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Motion to Intervene as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "This document is unavailable
as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts have in rare instances exercised their
discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules contemplate the filing of amicus
curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the
ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
08/21/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as to DONALD J.
TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "This document
is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts have in rare instances
exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules contemplate the filing
of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart
from the ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing".. Signed by Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
08/21/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Galaxy Bar Association as to DONALD J. TRUMP
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts have in rare instances
exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules contemplate the filing
of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart
from the ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya
S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
08/21/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Amicus Curiae in Support of Donald Trump as to
DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.
"This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts have in
rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023) Page 10 08/21/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Moton of Former Judges and Senior Legal Officials for
Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Government Proposed Trial Date
and Schedule as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court
denied its filing. "This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.
Although Courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party
submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor
the Local Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court
does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedures course by permitting
this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered:
08/29/2023)
08/21/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− MOTION TO INTERVENE THE OUTCOME OF
CASE AFFECTS DAVID REGINALD HERON AFTER MOTION INTERVENE
GRANTED [DAVID FILE SEPARATE MOTION − RULING TO HIRE
ATTORNEY) as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court
denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae
brief, the court is not persuaded that filing thissubmission is warranted. Although
courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party
submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor
the Local Criminal Rulescontemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time,
the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by
permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj)
(Entered: 10/06/2023)
08/22/
Consent MOTION to Appoint a Classified Information Security Officer by USA as to
DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed
Order)(Windom, Thomas) (Entered: 08/22/2023)
08/22/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The government's 33 Consent Motion
to Appoint a Classified Information Security Officer is hereby GRANTED. The court
will issue a separate sealed order designating the Officer and any alternate Officers.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/22/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 08/22/2023)
08/22/
Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order Pursuant to the Classified Information
Procedures Act by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order Proposed CIPA Protective Order)(Windom, Thomas) (Entered:
08/22/2023)
08/22/
ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP granting 35 Unopposed MOTION for Protective
Order Pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act. Signed by Judge Tanya
S. Chutkan on 8/22/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 08/22/2023)
08/28/
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan: Status Conference
and Hearing Pursuant to Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) as to
DONALD J. TRUMP held on 8/28/2023. In the interests of justice (XT), and for the
reasons stated on the record, the Court grants Defendant's 18 Motion for Exclusion of
Time Under Speedy Trial Act. The time from 8/3/2023 through and including
8/28/2023 shall be excluded in computing the date for speedy trial in this case. Jury
Trial in this matter is set for March 4, 2024 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 9 before Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan. Bond Status of Defendant: appearance waived, remains on
personal recognizance; Court Reporter: Bryan Wayne; Defense Attorneys: John F.
Lauro and Todd Blanche; US Attorneys: Molly G. Gaston and Thomas Windom. (zjd)
(Entered: 08/28/2023) Page 11 08/28/
TRANSCRIPT OF 8/28/23 STATUS HEARING in case as to DONALD J. TRUMP
before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan held on August 28, 2023; Page Numbers: 1−61. Date
of Issuance: 8/28/2023. Court Reporter: Bryan A. Wayne. Transcripts may be ordered
by submitting the Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above.
After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats,
(multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one
days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal
identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be
made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy,
which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our
website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 9/18/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/28/2023.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/26/2023.(Wayne, Bryan) (Entered:
08/28/2023)
08/28/
09/05/
PRETRIAL ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of the parties'
Proposed Briefing Schedules 23 30 32 , the court hereby sets the following pretrial
schedule. All pre−trial motions, excluding motions in limine, due 10/9/23, oppositions
due 10/23/23, and replies due 11/6/23. Motions in limine and Suppression Motions
due 12/27/23, oppositions due 1/9/24, and replies due 1/22/24. Not later than 12/4/23,
the government shall provide notice of evidence it intends to offer pursuant to Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b). Parties shall exchange expert witnesses on 12/11/23. Parties shall
exchange exhibit lists by 12/18/23 and file any objections to exhibits by 1/3/24;
replies due 1/9/24. Proposed jury instructions and voir dire questions due 1/15/24.
Parties shall exchange witness lists by 2/19/24. Trial will commence on 3/4/24 at 9:a.m. in Courtroom 9 unless otherwise specified. See Order for additional details and
instructions. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/28/2023. (zjd) Modified on
10/6/2023: See 82 Opinion and Order for amendments made to this order. (zjd).
(Entered: 08/28/2023)
VACATED PURSUANT TO MINUTE ORDER FILED 9/5/2023.....MINUTE
ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Government's 47 Motion for Leave to File
Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket is
hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the
unredacted copy of the Government's Motion (ECF No. 47−1), attaching Exhibit 1 to
the Government's Motion (ECF No. 47−2). The Clerk of the Court is further directed
to file on the public docket the redacted copy of the Government's Motion (ECF No.
47−3), attaching a placeholder sheet for Exhibit 1 to the Motion (ECF No. 47−4), and
the two proposed orders referenced in the Motion (ECF Nos. 47−5 and 47−6). Signed
by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/5/2023. (zjd) Modified on 9/5/2023 (zjd). (Entered:
09/05/2023)
09/05/
MOTION to Vacate by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro, John) (Entered: 09/05/2023)
09/05/
Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 48 Motion to
Vacate (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 09/05/2023) Page 12 09/05/
09/11/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant's 48 Motion to Vacate is
hereby GRANTED. The court's previous Minute Order of September 5, 2023 is
VACATED. Defendant shall respond to the government's 47 Motion for Leave to File
by September 11, 2023; the government may file a Reply by September 13, 2023.
Any opposition or reply may be filed under seal. Going forward, all motions,
including motions for leave to file, must (1) indicate whether the movant has
conferred with opposing counsel, and (2) state the nonmovant's position on the
motion, if known. As it has done here, the court may require briefing on motions for
leave to file under seal on a timeline shorter than the default periods provided for in
the Local Criminal Rules. However, all such briefing may be filed under seal without
further order of the court. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/5/2023. (zjd)
(Entered: 09/05/2023)
09/11/
MOTION for Recusal by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript
Excerpt 1, # 2 Exhibit Transcript Excerpt 2)(Lauro, John) (Entered: 09/11/2023)
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for Recusal, it is hereby ORDERED that the government shall file any
opposition no later than September 14, 2023, and the defense shall file any reply
within three calendar days from the filing date of the government's opposition. All
other deadlines set by the court remain in effect. Defense counsel is reminded of the
requirement to confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion and to indicate
whether the motion is opposed. See 09/05/2023 Second Minute Order. Future motions
that fail to comply with that requirement may be denied without prejudice. Signed by
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/11/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 09/11/2023)
09/13/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Application for Relief in a Criminal Case by a Person
not a Party−Applicant Charles E. Hill as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on
9/13/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/13/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Application for Relief in a Criminal Case by a Person
not a Party−Applicant Charles E. Hill as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to
file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling this submission is
warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretionto permit
third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedurenor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs.
At this time, the courtdoes not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural
course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/13/2023.
(zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/13/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Continued
Application to Arrest Protective Order Dated: 8/11/23 as to DONALD J. TRUMP
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a
motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling
this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their
discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of
amicus curiae briefs. At this time,the court does not find it necessary to depart from
the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/13/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/13/ Page 13 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Letter Regarding Defendant's Right to Attend Trial as to
DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.
"Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not
persuaded that filing this submission is warranted. Although courtshave in rare
instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinaryprocedural course by permitting this filing"
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/13/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/13/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Motion to Decriminalize as to DONALD J. TRUMP.
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/13/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/13/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Petition for Intervention as to DONALD J. TRUMP
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a
motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing
this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rareinstances exercised their
discretion to permit third−partysubmissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal
Rulesof Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rulescontemplate the filing of
amicus curiae briefs. At thistime, the court does not find it necessary to depart
fromthe ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya
S. Chutkan on 9/13/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/14/
MOTION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro, John)
Modified on 9/15/2023 (zhsj). (Entered: 09/14/2023)
09/14/
Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 50 Motion for
Recusal (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 09/14/2023)
09/15/
Opinion and Order as to DONALD J. TRUMP granting the government's 47 Motion
for Leave to File Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on
Public Docket, and granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 53 Motion for
Briefing Schedule. Defendant shall file any Opposition to the government's
substantive Motion by September 25, 2023, and the government shall file any Reply
by September 30, 2023. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the
unredacted copy of the government's substantive Motion (ECF No. 47−1), attaching
Exhibit 1 to the that Motion (ECF No. 47−2) under seal as well. The Clerk of the
Court is further directed to file on the public docket the redacted copy of the
government's Motion (ECF No. 47−3), attaching a placeholder sheet for Exhibit 1 to
the Motion (ECF No. 47−4), and attaching the two proposed orders referenced in the
Motion (ECF Nos. 47−5 and 47−6). Finally, the Clerk of the Court is directed to
unseal Defendant's motion, ECF No. 53. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Tanya
S. Chutkan on 9/15/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 09/15/2023)
09/15/
MOTION to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice these Proceedings
by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed
Order Exhibit 47−5, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47−6) (zhsj) (Attachment replaced on 9/21/2023) (zhsj). (Entered: 09/15/2023)
Main Document
Attachment # 1 Exhibit
Attachment # 2 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47− Page 14 Attachment # 3 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47−09/17/
REPLY in Support by DONALD J. TRUMP re 50 MOTION for Recusal (Lauro,
John) (Entered: 09/17/2023)
09/25/
NOTICE of Filing by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP (Attachments: # 1 Cover
Sheet)(Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 09/25/2023)
09/25/
Memorandum in Opposition by DONALD J. TRUMP re 57 Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief, (Lauro, John) (Entered: 09/25/2023)
09/27/
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP denying Defendant's Motion for Recusal of District Judge Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). See
attached memorandum opinion and order for full details. Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 09/27/2023)
09/27/
MOTION for Extension of Time to File CIPA Sect. 5 and response to ex parte notice
by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Blanche, Todd) (Entered: 09/27/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Petition for Writ of Error Corum Noblis and
Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof as to DONALD J. TRUMP. This document
is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave
to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this submission is
warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit
third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae
briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary
procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on
9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Motion to Intervene as to DONALD J. TRUMP. This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion
for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this
submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their
discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases,neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of
amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does notfind it necessary to depart from
the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Application for Relief in a Criminal Case by a Person
not a Party−Applicant Charles E. Hill as to DONALD J. TRUMP. This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to
file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this submission is
warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit
third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae
briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary
procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on
9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Motion for Reconsideration of Order Date 8/21/2023 as
to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.
"Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not
persuaded that filing this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare Page 15 instances exercised their discretion to permit third−partysubmissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion to Intervene as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion
for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this
submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their
discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rulescontemplate the filing of
amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from
the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion of D.A. Feliciano for Leave to File Amicus
Curiae Brief Supporting Neither Plaintiff Nor Defendant as to DONALD J. TRUMP
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Although courts have in
rare instances exercised theirdiscretion to permit third−party submissions in
criminalcases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure northe Local Criminal
Rules contemplate the filing of amicuscuriae briefs. At this time, the court does not
find it necessaryto depart from the ordinary procedural course by permittingthis
filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− New Motion to Intervene−New Fresh Most Recent
Evidence Relate 6/4/2009 &11/4/2008 as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to
file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling this submission is
warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion topermit
third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure northe Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs.
At this time, the court does notfind it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural
course by permitting this filing".. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023.
(zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis as to DONALD
J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if
construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not
persuaded that filing this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare
instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion to Intervene as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Even if construed as a motion
for leave to file anamicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling this
submission is warranted. Although courtshave in rare instances exercised their
discretion topermit third−party submissions in criminal cases,neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure northe Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing
ofamicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does notfind it necessary to depart from Page 16 the ordinaryprocedural course by permitting this filing." Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Proof of Service as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion
for leave to file an amicuscuriae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing
thissubmission is warranted. Although courts have in rareinstances exercised their
discretion to permit third−partysubmissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal
Rulesof Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rulescontemplate the filing of
amicus curiae briefs. At thistime, the court does not find it necessary to depart
fromthe ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing".. Signed by Judge Tanya
S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion for Reconsideration of Order Date 8/21/2023 as
to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.
"Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicuscuriae brief, the court is not
persuaded that filing thissubmission is warranted. Although courts have in
rareinstances exercised their discretion to permit third−partysubmissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rulesof Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal
Rulescontemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At thistime, the court does not
find it necessary to depart fromthe ordinary procedural course by permitting this
filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion to Intervene as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Even if construed as a motion
for leave to file anamicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling this
submission is warranted. Although courtshave in rare instances exercised their
discretion topermit third−party submissions in criminal cases,neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure northe Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing
ofamicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court doesnot find it necessary to depart from
the ordinaryprocedural course by permitting this filing." Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion of D.A. Feliciano for Leave to File Amicus
Curiae Brief Supporting Neither Plaintiff Nor Defendant as to DONALD J. TRUMP
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Although courts have in
rare instances exercised theirdiscretion to permit third−party submissions in
criminalcases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure northe Local Criminal
Rules contemplate the filing of amicuscuriae briefs. At this time, the court does not
find it necessaryto depart from the ordinary procedural course by permittingthis
filing." Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− New Motion to Intervene−New Fresh Most Recent
Evidence Relate 6/4/2009 &11/4/2008 as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to
file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling this submission is
warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion topermit
third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure northe Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs.
At this time, the court does notfind it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural
course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023.
(zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/28/ Page 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions by DONALD J. TRUMP.
(Lauro, John) (Entered: 09/28/2023)
09/28/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by
October 3, 2023, the government shall file any opposition to both Defendant's Motion for Access to CIPA § 4 Filing and an Adjournment of the CIPA § 5 Deadline
and Defendant's 63 Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions; and that
the defense shall file any reply within three calendar days from the filing date of the
government's opposition. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/28/2023. (zjd)
(Entered: 09/28/2023)
09/29/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The court hereby schedules a hearing
on the government's 57 Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not
Prejudice These Proceedings on October 16, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9. The
requirement of Defendant's appearance is waived for this hearing. Signed by Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/29/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 09/29/2023)
09/29/
REPLY in Support by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 57 MOTION to Ensure that
Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice these Proceedings (Gaston, Molly)
(Entered: 09/29/2023)
10/02/
Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 62 Motion for
Extension of Time to File CIPA Section 5 and Response to Ex Parte Notice (Windom,
Thomas) (Entered: 10/02/2023)
10/02/
Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 63 Motion for
Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions (Windom, Thomas) (Entered: 10/02/2023)
10/03/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: By October 10, 2023, defense counsel
John F. Lauro and Gregory M. Singer shall initiate and complete all security clearance
tasks as directed by the Litigation Security Group of the U.S. Department of Justice,
and thereafter file a Notice of Compliance by October 11, 2023. The Notice shall also
state whether the defense anticipates that any other of its members, whose assistance
is reasonably required, will need to obtain a security clearance. Signed by Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/3/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/03/2023)
10/03/
Set/Reset Deadlines as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Notice of Compliance due by
10/11/2023. (mac) (Entered: 10/03/2023)
10/04/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that court will
hold an ex parte Classified Information Procedures Act hearing with the defense at a
time and place arranged with defense counsel. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on
10/4/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/04/2023)
10/05/
MOTION to Dismiss Case by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro, John) (Entered:
10/05/2023)
10/05/
REPLY in Support by DONALD J. TRUMP re 63 MOTION for Extension of Time to
File Pretrial Motions (Lauro, John) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
10/05/
REPLY in Support by DONALD J. TRUMP re 62 MOTION for Extension of Time to
File CIPA Sect. 5 and response to ex parte notice (Lauro, John) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
10/06/
OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's 62 Motion for Access to CIPA § 4 Filing and An Adjournment of the
CIPA § 5 Deadline; granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 63 Motion for Page 18 Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions; and amending in part the court's Pretrial Order. Defense objections to ex parte nature of government's CIPA § submission due October 11, 2023; government response due October 18, 2023.
Defense CIPA § 5 notice due on October 26, 2023, with supplemental notices due
within 20 days of receiving access to additional classified discovery materials.
Dispositive motions, including motions to dismiss, due October 23, 2023; oppositions
due within 14 days of motion's filing; replies due within 10 days of opposition's filing.
Rule 17(c) motions and motions to compel due November 9, 2023; oppositions due
November 24, 2023; replies due December 1, 2023. See Opinion & Order for details.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/6/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
10/06/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Notice of Appeal as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even assuming a third party
could file a notice of appeal in a criminal case which the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure and Local Criminal Rules do not contemplate, this filing does not comply
with Rule 3(c) of the Circuit Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/6/2023. (zhsj) (Entered:
10/10/2023)
10/06/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Continued Judge
Chutkan Impermissibly Held First Amendment to be Unconstitutional as to DONALD
J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Even if
construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not
persuaded thatfiling this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare
instances exercised their discretionto permit third−party submissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of CriminalProcedure nor the Local Criminal Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time,the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permittingthis filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/6/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/09/
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Emil Bove Filing fee $ 100, receipt
number ADCDC−10406576. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro,
John) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
10/10/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Notice of Appeal as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even assuming a third
partycould file a notice of appeal in acriminal cases, which theFederal Rules of
CriminalProcedure and and LocalCriminal Rules do notcontemplate, this filing does
notcomply with Rule 3(c) of theCircuit Rules of the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the
District ofColumbia Circuit".. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/6/2023. (zhsj)
(Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/10/
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Notice of Appeal as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even assuming a third
partycould file a notice of appeal in acriminal cases, which theFederal Rules of
CriminalProcedure and and LocalCriminal Rules do notcontemplate, this filing does
notcomply with Rule 3(c) of theCircuit Rules of the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the
District ofColumbia Circuit".. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/6/2023. (zhsj)
(Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/10/
MOTION for Order for Fair and Protective Jury Procedures by USA as to DONALD
J. TRUMP. (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/10/ Page 19 MOTION for Formal Pretrial Notice of the Defendant's Intent to Rely on
Advice−of−Counsel Defense by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # Text of Proposed Order)(Windom, Thomas) (Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/10/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by
October 20, 2023, the defense shall file any opposition to the government's 97 Motion
for Fair and Protective Jury Procedures and 98 Motion for Formal Pretrial Notice of
the Defendant's Intent to Rely on Advice−of−Counsel Defense; and that the
government shall file any reply in support of those motions by October 25, 2023.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/10/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/11/
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting 85 Motion for Leave to
Appear Pro Hac Vice. Emil Bove is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this
matter on behalf of Defendant. Counsel should register for e−filing via PACER
and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCrR 44.5(a). Click for instructions.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/11/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/11/2023)
10/11/
10/11/
MOTION for Discovery (PRE−TRIAL RULE 17(c) SUBPOENAS) by DONALD J.
TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit,
# 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit)(Lauro,
John) (Entered: 10/11/2023)
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by
October 25, 2023, the government shall file any opposition to Defendant's 99 Motion
for Pre−Trial Rule 17(c) Subpoenas; and the defense shall file any reply in support of
its motion by November 1, 2023. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/11/2023.
(zjd) (Entered: 10/11/2023)
10/11/
NOTICE of Compliance by DONALD J. TRUMP re Order,,, Set Deadlines,, (Lauro,
John) (Entered: 10/11/2023)
10/11/
MOTION to Access CIPA Section 4 Filing by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Blanche, Todd)
(Entered: 10/11/2023)
10/13/
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Emil Bove appearing for DONALD J.
TRUMP (Bove, Emil) (Entered: 10/13/2023)
10/16/
10/16/
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan: Motion Hearing
as to DONALD J. TRUMP held on 10/16/2023 re 57 Motion to Ensure that
Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings. Order forthcoming.
Bond Status of Defendant: appearance waived, remains on personal recognizance;
Court Reporter: Bryan Wayne; Defense Attorneys: John F. Lauro and Todd Blanche;
US Attorneys: Molly G. Gaston and Thomas Windom. (zjd) (Entered: 10/16/2023)
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING in case as to DONALD J. TRUMP before
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan held on October 16, 2023; Page Numbers: 1−86. Date of
Issuance: 10/16/2023. Court Reporter: Bryan A. Wayne. Transcripts may be ordered
by submitting the Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above.
After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats,
(multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter. Page 20 NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one
days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal
identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be
made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy,
which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our
website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 11/6/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/16/2023.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/14/2024.(Wayne, Bryan) (Entered:
10/16/2023)
10/16/
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE James Pearce appearing for USA.
(Pearce, James) (Main Document 104 replaced on 10/17/2023) (zhsj). (Entered:
10/16/2023)
10/17/
OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting in part and denying in
part the government's 57 Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not
Prejudice These Proceedings; and denying as moot the government's sealed Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/17/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/17/2023)
10/17/
NOTICE OF APPEAL (Interlocutory) by DONALD J. TRUMP re 105 Memorandum
Opinion,, Order,. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ADCDC−10425241. Fee Status:
Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Lauro, John) (Entered: 10/17/2023) Page 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case No. 1:23-cr-00257-TSC
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Defendant President Donald J. Trump hereby provides notice that he appeals to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the Opinion and Order of the District
Court dated October 17, 2023, ECF No. 105.
Dated: October 17,
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Blanche, Esq. (PHV)
toddblanche@blanchelaw.com
Emil Bove, Esq. (PHV)
Emil.Bove@blanchelaw.com
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall St., Suite New York, NY (212) 716-
/s/John F. Lauro
John F. Lauro, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. jlauro@laurosinger.com
Gregory M. Singer, Esq. (PHV)
gsinger@laurosinger.com
Filzah I. Pavalon, Esq. (PHV)
fpavalon@laurosinger.com
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa St., 15th Floor
Tampa, FL (813) 222-Counsel for President Trump Page 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
Criminal Action No. 23-257 (TSC)
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth below and during the hearing in this case on October 16, 2023,
the government’s Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These
Proceedings, ECF No. 57, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Under binding Supreme Court precedent, this court “must take such steps by rule and
regulation that will protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences.” Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966). The First Amendment does not override that obligation.
“Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential
requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice. But it must not be allowed to divert
the trial from the very purpose of a court system to adjudicate controversies, both criminal and
civil, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures.” Id. at 350–
51 (cleaned up); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 n.18 (1984) (“Although
litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights may
be subordinated to other interests that arise in this setting. For instance, on several occasions this
Court has approved restriction on the communications of trial participants where necessary to
ensure a fair trial for a criminal defendant.”) (quotation omitted). Here, alternative measures
Page 1 of Page 23 such as careful voir dire, jury sequestration, and cautionary jury instructions are sufficient to
remedy only some of the potential prejudices that the government’s motion seeks to address.
In order to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, it is necessary to impose certain
restrictions on public statements by interested parties. Undisputed testimony cited by the
government demonstrates that when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on
matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed. See ECF
No. 57 at 3–5. Since his indictment, and even after the government filed the instant motion,
Defendant has continued to make similar statements attacking individuals involved in the judicial
process, including potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff. See id. at 6–12. Defendant
has made those statements to national audiences using language communicating not merely that
he believes the process to be illegitimate, but also that particular individuals involved in it are
liars, or “thugs,” or deserve death. Id.; ECF No. 64 at 9–10. The court finds that such statements
pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated or otherwise unduly
influenced by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2)
attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and
harassment. And that risk is largely irreversible in the age of the Internet; once an individual is
publicly targeted, even revoking the offending statement may not abate the subsequent threats,
harassment, or other intimidating effects during the pretrial as well as trial stages of this case.
The defense’s position that no limits may be placed on Defendant’s speech because he is
engaged in a political campaign is untenable, and the cases it cites do not so hold. The Circuit
Courts in both United States v. Brown and United States v. Ford recognized that First
Amendment rights must yield to the imperative of a fair trial. 218 F.3d 415, 424 (2000); F.2d 596, 599 (1987). Unlike the district courts in those cases, however, this court has found that
Page 2 of Page 24 even amidst his political campaign, Defendant’s statements pose sufficiently grave threats to the
integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means, and it has tailored
its order to meet the force of those threats. Brown, 218 F.3d at 428–30; Ford, 830 F.2d at 600.
Thus, limited restrictions on extrajudicial statements are justified here. The bottom line is that
equal justice under law requires the equal treatment of criminal defendants; Defendant’s
presidential candidacy cannot excuse statements that would otherwise intolerably jeopardize
these proceedings.
Accordingly, and pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), it is hereby ORDERED that:
All interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their counsel, are
prohibited from making any public statements, or directing others to make any
public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his
staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other
supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of
their testimony.
This Order shall not be construed to prohibit Defendant from making statements criticizing the
government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice;
statements asserting that Defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution
is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of
Defendant’s current political rivals, such as former Vice President Pence.
In addition, the sealed version of the government’s Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial
Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings, ECF No. 56, is DENIED as moot.
Date: October 17,
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
Page 3 of Page 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC)
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO ENSURE THAT EXTRAJUDICIAL
STATEMENTS DO NOT PREJUDICE THESE PROCEEDINGS
Since the grand jury returned an indictment in this case, the defendant has repeatedly and
widely disseminated public statements attacking the citizens of the District of Columbia, the Court,
prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. Through his statements, the defendant threatens to
undermine the integrity of these proceedings and prejudice the jury pool, in contravention of the
“undeviating rule” that in our justice system a jury’s verdict is to “be induced only by evidence
and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S.
333, 351 (1966) (quotations omitted). In accordance with the Court’s duty to “protect [its]
processes from prejudicial outside interferences,” id. at 363, the Government requests that the
Court take the following immediate measures to ensure the due administration of justice and a fair
and impartial jury: (1) enter a narrowly tailored order pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) that
restricts certain prejudicial extrajudicial statements; and (2) enter an order through which the Court
can ensure that if either party conducts a jury study involving contact with the citizens of this
District, the jury study is conducted in a way that will not prejudice the venire. The Government
obtained the defendant’s position from counsel for the defendant, and he opposes this motion. Page 26 I.
Background
As set forth in the indictment, after election day in 2020, the defendant launched a
disinformation campaign in which he publicly and widely broadcast knowingly false claims that
there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the presidential election, and that he had actually
won. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 4. In service of his criminal conspiracies, through false public statements,
the defendant sought to erode public faith in the administration of the election and intimidate
individuals who refuted his lies. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 28, 31-32, 42, 44, 74, 97, 100, 104, 111. The
defendant is now attempting to do the same thing in this criminal case—to undermine confidence
in the criminal justice system and prejudice the jury pool through disparaging and inflammatory
attacks on the citizens of this District, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. The
defendant’s conduct presents a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” to these proceedings,
and the Court can and should take steps to restrict such harmful extrajudicial statements. Gentile
v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1075 (1991).
A. The Defendant Has a History of Inflammatory and Misleading Statements That
He Knew or Should Have Known Would Cause Others to Harass and Harm
Perceived Critics or Adversaries
The defendant has an established practice of issuing inflammatory public statements
targeted at individuals or institutions that present an obstacle or challenge to him. In the period
between the presidential election on November 3, 2020, and the congressional certification
proceeding on January 6, 2021, the defendant trained his focus on the election system, including
election officials and other individuals carrying out civic duties to implement fair elections in
various states. As a result, the defendant engendered widespread mistrust in the administration of
the election, and the individuals whom he targeted were subject to threats and harassment.
-2Page 27 Examples of this pattern, from the indictment and the Government’s investigation, include
the following:
•
whom the defendant specifically targeted
on the social media platform Twitter because
had publicly stated that there was
no evidence of election fraud.
See ECF No. 1, Indictment, ¶ 42;
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1326525851752656898.
After
the
defendant’s tweet,
observed an increase in the volume and severity of threats
against him and his family. See House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol (“House Select Committee”), 6/13/22 Hr’g, at 1:47:14–
1:47:43 (“After the President tweeted at me by name, calling me out the way that he did,
the threats became much more specific, much more graphic, and included not just me by
name but included members of my family by name, their ages, our address, pictures of our
home. Just every bit of detail that you could imagine. That was what changed with that
tweet.”).
•
during the
2020 election, whose home address was listed on the internet and whose family was
threatened with violence after the defendant and surrogates publicly derogated
for certifying the election. See Exhibit 1 at 3-6.
•
during the election, who received threatening communications after
certified the election
and the defendant issued public posts about them. See Exhibit 1 at 26-27 (
).
•
who required additional police
protection after the defendant targeted
on Twitter for
rejecting one of the defendant’s election challenges. See Exhibit 1 at 41-44.
The defendant knows that when he publicly attacks individuals and institutions, he inspires
others to perpetrate threats and harassment against his targets. On December 1, 2020, as the
defendant was fueling an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger regarding the election,
a Georgia election official held a widely televised press conference in which he pleaded with the
See https://january6th-benniethompson.house.gov/legislation/hearings/06132022-selectcommittee-hearing.
-3Page 28 defendant to stop, stating that if he did not, “Someone’s going to get hurt, someone’s going to get
shot, someone’s going to get killed.” 2 The defendant did not stop. Instead, he continued—even
to the present—to attack individuals whom he knows already suffered threats and harassment as a
result of his words. For instance:
•
On November 17, 2020, the defendant fired
, his appointed director of the
Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
after
made statements assuring the public of the integrity of the election. See ECF
No. 1 ¶ 11(d). Later that month, after
appeared on a news program and again stated
publicly that the presidential election had been secure, the defendant attacked him on
Twitter, and on November 30, an agent of the defendant publicly stated that
“should
be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot.” 3 This statement was so dangerous
that the above-described Georgia election official mentioned it in his press conference
when warning the defendant and others that such rhetoric would lead to violence. and his family received death threats and had to evacuate their home, and through a
December 8, 2020 lawsuit put the defendant on explicit notice of the threats and harassment
the defendant had caused. 5 The defendant continued to publicly attack
anyway.
•
In 2020, the defendant and co-conspirators 6 spread false accusations of misconduct against
, a Georgia election worker, and
. As
a result,
were inundated by threats. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 26.
subsequently described the pernicious threats and intimidation she endured as a result of
these false allegations in an interview with the House Select Committee, which publicly
released a transcript of the interview on December 29, 2022. See Select Committee Press
See NBC News, Georgia Secretary of State Press Conference (Dec. 1, 2020),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH9FnY0qvNI.
See CBC News, 60 Minutes (Nov. 29, 2020), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electionresults-security-chris-krebs-60-minutes-2020-11-29/; Newsmax, Howie Carr Radio Show (Nov.
30, 2020).
See NBC News, Georgia Secretary of State Press Conference (Dec. 1, 2020),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH9FnY0qvNI.
See Case No. 484243V (Montgomery County, Maryland Circuit Court), Complaint (Dec.
8, 2020).
A court in this District recently entered a default judgment against one of the defendant’s
co-conspirators in a lawsuit filed against him by
for his defamatory false
claims. See 21-cv-3354 (BAH), ECF No. 93, Order (Aug. 30, 2023).
-4Page 29 Release, Release of Select Committee Materials (Dec. 29, 2022); 7 Select Committee
Transcript at 8 (“Do you know how it feels to have the President of the United States to
target you? The President of the United States is supposed to represent every American,
not to target one. But he targeted me . . . a small-business owner, a mother, a proud
American citizen who stood up to help Fulton County run an election in the middle of the
pandemic. . . . And, lo and behold, when someone as powerful as the President of the United
States eggs on a mob, that mob will come. They came for us with their cruelty, their threats,
their racism, and their hats. They haven’t stopped even today.”). 8 Within ten days of the
public release of
interview transcript, the defendant—despite the known threats
the election worker had received, and the established falsity of the claims of misconduct—
publicly attacked
again on Truth Social through a series of repeated false claims. •
Likewise, the defendant recently renewed attacks on former Georgia Lieutenant Governor
, whose harassment the defendant inspired in the aftermath of the election.
In December 2020, after Georgia’s Governor and Lieutenant Governor rejected the
defendant’s calls to appoint the defendant’s illegitimate electors in Georgia, the defendant
issued a post labeling
a “Rino Never Trumper” who was “dumb or corrupt” and
urged, “We need every great Georgian to call him out!”
See
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/ 1336148836495069185. Thereafter,
reported, he received death threats. 10 Nonetheless, last month, on August 14, 2023, when
it was publicly reported that
had been called to testify before a state grand jury in
Fulton County, Georgia, the defendant posted on Truth Social that “[h]e shouldn’t” testify.
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110888087440060991.
The defendant continues these attacks on individuals precisely because he knows that in doing so,
he is able to roil the public and marshal and prompt his supporters. As he acknowledged in a
televised town hall on May 10, 2023, his supporters listen to him “like no one else.”
See https://january6th-benniethompson.house.gov/news/press-releases/release-selectcommittee-materials-4.
https://january6th-benniethompson.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/
files/20220531_
.pdf.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109623460421938942;
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109623536630848334;
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109623623674619588.
MSNBC, Morning Joe, https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/georgia-slieutenant-governor-won-t-seek-reelection-turns-focus-to-gop-2-0-112276
See CNN, Transcript of CNN’s Town Hall with Former President Donald Trump (May
11, 2023), https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/11/politics/transcript-cnn-town-hall-trump/index.html.
-5Page 30 B. Since the Indictment, the Defendant Has Deployed Misleading and Inflammatory
Statements About this Case to Undermine Confidence in the Justice System and
Prejudice the Jury Pool
The defendant made clear his intent to issue public attacks related to this case when, the
day after his arraignment, he posted a threatening message on Truth Social:
And he has made good on his threat. Since the indictment in this case, the defendant has spread
disparaging and inflammatory public posts on Truth Social on a near-daily basis regarding the
citizens of the District of Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. Like his
previous public disinformation campaign regarding the 2020 presidential election, the defendant’s
recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution—the
judicial system—and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals—the Court, the jury
pool, witnesses, and prosecutors. Below are select examples of the defendant’s disparaging and
inflammatory Truth Social posts.
i. Posts Attacking, Undermining, and Attempting to Intimidate the Court and the
Jury Pool
The defendant has posted repeated, inflammatory attacks on the judicial system, the Court,
and the citizens of the District of Columbia who comprise the jury pool in this case. The defendant
has made baseless claims—cited or inserted below—that the justice system is “rigged” 12 against
him; that the Court is “a fraud dressed up as a judge in Washington, D.C. who is a radical Obama
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110857162338915853.
-6Page 31 hack” or is a “biased, Trump-hating judge”; 13 and that he cannot get a fair trial from the residents
of this “filthy and crime ridden” District that “is over 95% anti-Trump.”
See re-post of https://truthsocial.com/@marklevinshow/posts/110973488250507373;
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110980188106641474.
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110823476578708544.
-7Page 32 ii. Posts Attacking, Undermining, and Attempting to Intimidate Prosecutors
Similarly, the defendant has posted false and disparaging claims regarding the Department
of Justice and prosecutors in the Special Counsel’s Office in an attempt to undermine confidence
in the justice system and prejudice the jury pool against the Government in advance of trial. In a
video posted to Truth Social, the defendant called the Special Counsel’s Office a “team of thugs.”
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110980188106641474.
-8Page 33 Recently, the defendant has spread knowingly false accusations of misconduct against a
prosecutor in the Special Counsel’s Office working on the case in which the defendant was indicted
in the Southern District of Florida in June 2023, see United States v. Donald J. Trump, et al, Case
No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, ECF No. 30 at 1 (S.D. Fla. June 21, 2023), and connected those false
accusations to this case in the District of Columbia by calling the Court a “biased, Trump Hating
Judge,” as shown below. In his posts on this topic, the defendant repeatedly makes the knowingly
false claim that Special Counsel’s Office prosecutors went to the White House in advance of the
defendant’s June 2023 indictment for improper reasons.
-9Page 34 In fact, as the defendant well knows from the formal FBI FD-302 interview report and agent notes
that he received in discovery on June 21, 2023, in the Southern District of Florida case, on March
31, 2023, the Special Counsel’s Office prosecutor conducted a routine investigative interview of a
career military official at that official’s duty station—the White House. The defendant’s objective
in spreading a knowing lie to the contrary—including by re-posting others’ Truth Social posts
naming the prosecutor and repeating the lie 16—is an attempt to prejudice the public and the venire
in advance of trial.
With that same goal, the defendant has posted misleading claims on Truth Social to
insinuate misconduct by the Special Counsel’s Office in pursuing ordinary court-approved process
or seeking the indictment in this case. Regarding a search warrant and non-disclosure order that
the Government received from the court consistent with the law, for instance, the defendant falsely
claimed that the Special Counsel’s Office broke into his former Twitter account 17 in a “major ‘hit’
on my civil rights” and queried whether the Special Counsel directed the Select Committee to
On August 28, the defendant re-posted a Truth Social post doing exactly this. See
https://truthsocial.com/@marklevinshow/110969978988667723.
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110886100439412597.
- 10 Page 35 “DESTROY & DELETE all evidence.” 18 And on August 2, the defendant posted a quote alleging,
without any basis, that the indictment that a federal grand jury in this case returned had been
directed by the sitting president: “‘Joe Biden directed his Attorney General to prosecute his rival.
This is not an independent Justice Department, this is not an independent special counsel. This is
being directed by the Commander-in-Chief.” 19 Through such posts, the defendant is attempting
to submit his false and inflammatory claims to the public and jury pool outside of court, because
he knows that any such claims made before the Court in the form of motions to suppress or of
vindictive prosecution will fail because they must be supported by evidence—of which there is
none.
iii. Posts Bolstering or Attacking and Attempting to Intimidate Witnesses
The defendant has also posted publicly about individuals whom he has reason to believe
will be witnesses in this trial. For instance, on August 30, the defendant posted a video attacking
the former Attorney General of the United States, a potential witness in this case, on the very
subject of his testimony. 20 Steadily since indictment, the defendant has publicly bolstered certain
prospective witnesses in this case, while attacking others, in an effort to influence the public’s and
the jury pool’s impressions of potential witnesses outside of the courtroom. Examples of such
posts are below.
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110860965885418709.
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110823008009285486.
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110980538393058556.
- 11 Page 36 C. The Defendant’s Public Posts Regarding this Case are Reasonably Likely to
Prejudice the Jury Pool
The defendant’s relentless public posts marshaling anger and mistrust in the justice system,
the Court, and prosecutors have already influenced the public. For instance, on August 5, 2023,
an individual was arrested because she called the Court’s chambers and made racist death threats
to the Court that were tied to the Court’s role in presiding over the defendant’s case. See United
States v. Shry, Case No. 4:23-mj-1602, ECF No. 1 at 3 (Criminal Complaint) (S.D. Tex. August
11, 2023). In addition, the Special Counsel has been subject to multiple threats, and the specific
Special Counsel’s Office prosecutor that the defendant has targeted through recent, inflammatory
public posts has been subject to intimidating communications. Given the defendant’s history
described above and the nature of the threats to the Court and to the Government, it is clear that
- 12 Page 37 the threats are prompted by the defendant’s repeated and relentless posts. To the extent that the
defendant’s public posts reach the general public, they also reach the jury pool for this trial.
In addition, if unfettered, the way that the defendant is known to use public statements to
intimidate individuals could affect potential jurors. A recent incident in this District illustrates the
potential issue. Last week, in a trial against a self-professed supporter of the defendant who
claimed to have been at the United States Capitol on January 6 because of the defendant’s tweets,
the jury sent the court a note expressing concern that the trial defendant (Fellows) might have
information about the identity of jurors. See United States v. Brandon Fellows, Case No. 21-cr83 (TNM) at ECF No. 141, Note (“We wanted to confirm that the defendent [sic] does not have
any personal information on individual jurors, since he was defending himself. Includes name,
address, etc.”). This demonstrates the need to protect potential jurors from fear of threats and
harassment that stem from the defendant’s disparaging and inflammatory public statements.
II.
The Court Should Ensure That Public Statements by the Defendant and His Agents
Do Not Prejudice These Criminal Proceedings
The defendant’s repeated, inflammatory public statements regarding the District of
Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and potential witnesses are substantially likely to materially
prejudice the jury pool, create fear among potential jurors, and result in threats or harassment to
individuals he singles out. Put simply, those involved in the criminal justice process who read and
hear the defendant’s disparaging and inflammatory messages (from court personnel, to
prosecutors, to witnesses, to potential jurors) may reasonably fear that they could be the next
targets of the defendant’s attacks. To protect the due administration of justice in these proceedings
and ensure the impartiality of the venire, the Government proposes two narrowly tailored orders
that impose modest, permissible restrictions on prejudicial extrajudicial conduct by the parties and
counsel.
- 13 Page 38 A. The Court Should Issue an Order Pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) That
Prohibits Certain Narrowly Defined Statements
The Court has recognized its “obligation to prevent what the Supreme Court called in
Sheppard v. Maxwell ‘a carnival atmosphere of unchecked publicity and trial by media rather than
our constitutionally established system of trial by impartial jury.’” 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 71. To
fulfill that obligation, the Court may “take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their
processes from prejudicial outside interferences,” including by “proscrib[ing] extrajudicial
statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official which divulge[s] prejudicial matters.”
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 361 (1966). Consistent with these principles, the Court should
enter an order pursuant to this District’s Local Criminal Rules imposing limited restrictions on
certain extrajudicial public statements by the parties and attorneys in this case.
Local Criminal Rule 57.7 permits the Court, “[i]n a widely publicized or sensational
criminal case,” upon a motion or sua sponte, to “issue a special order governing such matters as
extrajudicial statements by parties, witnesses and attorneys likely to interfere with the rights of the
accused to a fair trial by an impartial jury.” LCrR 57.7(c); see also LCrR 57.7(b)(1), (3)
(prohibiting pre-trial, public statements by lawyers that might prejudice the due administration of
justice). Courts in this District have exercised their authority under Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c)
to issue orders restricting statements of counsel and parties in appropriate cases. See United States
v. Stone, No. 19-cr-18, ECF No. 36 at 3 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2019) (ordering, inter alia, attorneys to
“refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood
of material prejudice to this case”); United States v. Butina, No. 18-cr-218, ECF No. 31 at (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2018) (ordering “all interested participants, in the matter, including the parties,
any potential witnesses, and counsel for the parties and witnesses . . . to refrain from making
statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice
- 14 Page 39 to this case”). Other jurisdictions are in accord. See United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, (5th Cir. 2000) (upholding district court order restricting extrajudicial statements, and reasoning
that the rationale of Gentile applies equally to attorneys and parties).
The Government seeks a narrow, well-defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial
statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case. The
Government’s proposed order specifies that such statements would include (a) statements
regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about
any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and
inflammatory, or intimidating. See Exhibit 2. The Government’s order also specifies that,
consistent with other clarifications in Local Criminal Rule 57.7, the order is not intended to
prohibit quotation or reference to public court records of the case or the defendant’s proclamations
of innocence. Id. This proposal is consistent with the permissible balance approved by the
Supreme Court in Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1074-75, and specific enough to provide adequate notice to
the parties and counsel of prohibited statements.
The defendant’s past conduct, including conduct that has taken place after and as a direct
result of the indictment in this case, amply demonstrates the need for this order. As illustrated by
the examples discussed above, the defendant’s statements reasonably could have a material impact
on the impartiality of the jury pool while simultaneously influencing witness testimony. The
defendant’s repeated posts that he cannot receive a fair trial from this Court or from a jury of his
peers in this District are substantially likely to undermine confidence in the justice system, affect
the jury pool, or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. His misleading statements
regarding the Special Counsel’s Office and its investigation are designed to do the same. And his
- 15 Page 40 targeting of specific witnesses seeks to either bolster or impeach witnesses not before this Court
but instead in the court of public opinion before trial begins.
A supplemental order that extends some of the prohibitions that apply to defense counsel
to the defendant himself is particularly warranted. Shortly after the indictment in this case was
unsealed, the defendant’s lead counsel began a series of lengthy and detailed interviews in which
he potentially tainted the jury pool by disseminating information and opinions about the case and
a potential witness and described in detail legal defenses that he plans to mount, including defenses
that may never be raised in court or that may be rejected by the Court before ever reaching the
jury. 21 Many of these statements by lead counsel violated Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b), which
prohibits attorneys from releasing public extrajudicial statements regarding, among other things,
“the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and the “merits of the case or the
evidence in the case.” In the time since the Court admonished the parties and counsel at the hearing
regarding the motion for a protective order on August 11, 2023, see 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 72, the
Government is unaware of lead counsel making any additional public statements of this nature.
The defendant, however, has persisted. The Court should therefore enter the order proposed by
See, e.g., CNN (August 1, 2023), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW7Bixvkpc0;
NPR (August 2, 2023), https://www.npr.org/2023/08/02/1191627739/trump-charges-indictmentattorney-jan-6-probe;
CNN
(August
6,
2023),
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/08/06/sotu-lauro-full.cnn; ABC, This Week (August 6,
2023),
https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/mike-pence-best-witnesses-trial-john-lauro102054360; NBC, Meet the Press (August 6, 2023), https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-thepress/video/august-6-john-lauro-and-rep-jamie-raskin-190118469904; CBS, Face the Nation
(August 6, 2023), https://www.cbsnews.com/video/face-the-nation-lauro-phillips-krebs/; Fox,
Fox News Sunday (August 6, 2023), https://www.foxnews.com/video/6332525513112; CBS,
Face the Nation (August 6, 2023); For the Defense with David Oscar Marcus (August 6, 2023),
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/john-lauro-for-donald-jtrump/id1536699806?i=1000623609326.
- 16 Page 41 the Government to ensure the defendant does not undermine the integrity of these proceedings by
disseminating statements defense counsel cannot make.
B. The Court Should Issue an Order That Prohibits Contacting the Citizens of This
District to Conduct Jury Studies Without First Notifying and Receiving
Authorization from the Court
The Court has already taken steps to protect the venire related to polling of prospective
jurors related to this case. At the status hearing on August 28, 2023, after the Government raised
the issue of jury studies, and the defense suggested they may “sooner rather than later” conduct
outreach to the jury pool to gather information for a potential change of venue motion, the Court
instructed the defendant to notify the Court ex parte before conducting any polling in the District
of Columbia in connection with a potential motion to change the trial venue. See 8/18/23 Hr’g Tr.
at 59-60. In so doing, the Court noted that such polling “might affect the same jury pool you are
claiming is not fair” and might “actually affect their ability to render a fair verdict by virtue of the
kinds of questions you’re asking, because questions can be phrased in all kinds of ways.” Id.
Because of the potential prejudice that polling may cause, the Government respectfully
requests that the Court set forth a process to review efforts by either party to engage in contacts
with members of the jury venire in this District undertaken for the purpose of discussing casespecific facts, including any pretrial survey, poll, focus group, or similar study (hereinafter, “jury
study”). 22 Specifically, the Court should (1) require either party to notify the Court before the
party—or any individual or entity acting at the party’s direction or under its control—undertakes
any jury study in this District; (2) require the completion of any such jury study no later than days before jury selection begins; (3) require either party to submit the proposed questions and
At a later date, the Government intends to file a motion regarding other issues related to
the jury, including the use of a juror questionnaire.
- 17 Page 42 methodology ex parte for the Court’s review before undertaking any jury study; and (4) require
filing under seal of the name and address of each participant contacted in any jury study at least
two weeks before jury selection. A proposed order is attached as Exhibit 3.
Such an order is consistent with the Court’s inherent authority to protect the “integrity and
fairness” of the judicial system through preventing “comments that are likely to prejudice the jury
venire.” Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075. Though pretrial surveys are neither inherently suspect nor
uncommon in trial litigation, see Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prods., LLC, 601 S.W.3d 704, (Tex. 2020); see also Ellen Kreitzberg & Mary Procaccio-Flowers, The Law, Art & Science of
Selecting a Jury § 3:3 (2022) (noting the utility of pretrial surveys), courts nonetheless maintain
the authority to supervise and oversee their use. See United States v. Collins, 972 F.2d 1385, (5th Cir. 1992) (district court reviewed materials related to Government’s polling to determine
whether it had compromised the integrity of jury selection); Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prod., LLC,
546 S.W.3d 866, 877 (Tex. App. 2018) (finding that pretrial surveys are “subject to review by the
presiding court in order to determine whether anything was done to compromise the integrity of
the jury selection process”), rev’d on other grounds, 601 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. 2020). If questions in
a pretrial survey are worded to advocate for a certain party’s position, or test the effectiveness of
a party’s message in addition to gathering information, they can have a potentially prejudicial
effect. See Brewer, 601 S.W.3d at 726 (“A campaign of disinformation, in whatever form,
undermines the sanctity of the judicial process and is inimical to the constitutional promise of a
fair and impartial jury trial.); cf. United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 64 n.43 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
(finding that the district court did not err in relying more on comprehensive voir dire than “a poll
taken in private by private pollsters and paid for by one side”).
- 18 Page 43 To guard against the damage that a pretrial survey could inflict on the venire—whether
intentionally or not—this Court should exercise its inherent authority here. At least one district
court has a standing order that requires the parties to provide advance notification “[w]hen the
party decides that it will, or is likely to, commission” a pretrial mock trial, focus group, or similar
study of the jury venire. See The Honorable Ron Clark, E.D. Tex. Standing Order RC-47 (Aug.
11, 2010). An order of this type “do[es] not prohibit use of surveys as a litigation tool” but instead
“regulate[s] the practice . . . by (1) requir[ing] pretrial notice of intent to conduct such a study; (2)
requir[ing] disclosure . . . of the methodology; (3) temporally limit[ing] proximity to trial; and (4)
requir[ing] in camera submission of each participant’s name and address in advance of the pretrial conference.” Brewer, 601 S.W.3d at 726 (emphasis in original). The Government has
attached a proposed order that contains these features.
III.
Conclusion
Consistent with its obligations to guard the integrity of these proceedings and prevent
prejudice to the jury pool, while respecting the defendant’s First Amendment rights, the Court
should enter the proposed orders imposing certain narrow restrictions on the parties’ public
statements regarding this case and governing any jury studies the parties may undertake.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK SMITH
Special Counsel
By:
/s/Molly Gaston
Molly Gaston
Thomas P. Windom
Senior Assistant Special Counsels
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Room B-Washington, D.C.
- 19 Page 44 Exhibit 1 (Sealed) Page 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC)
ORDER
Having considered the parties’ filings, and mindful of the Court’s responsibility to protect
the fundamental right to a fair trial by impartial jurors from comments that are likely to influence
the outcome of the trial or prejudice the jury venire, see Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S.
1030, 1075 (1991), upon the Court’s finding that a narrowly tailored order governing extrajudicial
statements by the parties is the least restrictive measure to protect this process from materially
prejudicial outside interference, and pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), the Court orders as
follows:
1.
The parties in this case and their attorneys are prohibited from making or
authorizing statements to the media or in public settings, including through social media, that pose
a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case. Such statements include, but are not
limited to, (a) statements regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses;
and (b) disparaging and inflammatory or intimidating statements about any party, witness,
attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors. The defendant is also prohibited from causing
surrogates to make such statements on his behalf.
2.
Consistent with Local Criminal Rule 57.7, this prohibition does not preclude the
defendant or his attorneys, agents, or others acting on his behalf from (a) quoting or referring Page 46 without comment to public records of the court in the case; (b) announcing the scheduling or result
of any stage in the judicial process; (c) requesting assistance in obtaining evidence; or (d)
announcing without further comment that the defendant denies the charges.
HON. TANYA S. CHUTKAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2Page 47 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC)
ORDER
Before the Court are the parties’ filings regarding pretrial surveys. Participation in a
pretrial survey, poll, or similar study (“jury study”) increases the risk that otherwise qualified
members of the jury pool will be disqualified from jury service either through participation in the
jury study or through other extrajudicial knowledge concerning the facts of the case or the law to
be applied. Mindful of the Court’s responsibility to “take such steps by rule and regulation that
will protect” pretrial and trial proceedings “from prejudicial outside interferences,” see Sheppard
v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966), the Court orders as follows:
1.
Either party must notify the Court ex parte before the party or any individual or
entity acting at the party’s direction or under the party’s control undertakes any jury study in the
District of Columbia.
2.
Any such jury study must be completed 30 days before the start of jury selection.
The notification must include (a) a brief description of the intended methodology; (b) all questions
that will be asked in the pretrial survey, poll, or study; and (c) the expected number of participants.
3.
The party may not begin the jury study until it is approved by the Court, and no
party may use the results of any jury study unless it has been approved in advance by the Court.
In order to safeguard the sanctity of the judicial system and ensure the constitutional promise of a Page 48 fair and impartial jury, the Court may require the party to edit or remove portions of the intended
jury study.
4.
The party or parties who commission the jury study must retain the name and
address of each participant contacted. The party or parties who commissioned the survey, poll, or
study shall supply the names of all participants to the Court at least two weeks prior to jury
selection.
HON. TANYA S. CHUTKAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2Page 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 1:23-cr-257-TSC
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS
After setting trial in this matter for March 4, 2024, the Court indicated that it would create
an initial pretrial schedule without argument, but that “[i]f the parties have conflicts or other issues
with the schedule other than the trial date, [a party] may file a motion to alter those dates after
consulting with opposing counsel regarding alternative dates.” Doc. 38 at 56.
This process is typically uncontroversial, with the government routinely agreeing to
reasonable extensions of pretrial deadlines, especially where—as here—a requested extension
would have no impact on the trial setting. With good reason, as the government’s “interest . . . in
a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Berger v.
United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).
Not so here. Aware that its case legally insufficient and subject to dismissal, the prosecution
casts the mandates of Berger aside, cynically hoping that it can obtain a conviction by denying
President Trump his constitutional right to present a defense, including through motions addressing
fatal deficiencies in the indictment. The Court should reject these improper, irregular, and
unconstitutional tactics, and grant the Requested Extension, consistent with ordinary order. Page 50 ARGUMENT
Acting as though this were a mine-run case proceeding along a well-worn road, the
prosecution claims President Trump should need no more than two months to submit pretrial
motions. The prosecution knows better. This case is the first of its kind in American history. Many,
if not most, of President Trump’s motions address wholly unique areas of the law that have never
been litigated. To lodge these motions properly, counsel requires time to fully research and develop
each issue and apprise the court of relevant authorities.
For this exact reason, Fed. R. Crim P. 12(c)(1) allows liberal extensions of the pretrial
motion deadline, which does not exist to limit a defendant’s right to present motions, but rather to
facilitate decisions in advance of trial—an objective the Requested Extension fully achieves by
placing the deadline nearly three months before jury selection.
Unable to dispute this, the prosecution grasps at straws, claiming the Requested Extension
would result “in a cascade of conflicts” that would somehow “delay the trial until [President
Trump’s] preferred 2026 trial date.” Doc. 66 at 7. In support, the prosecution argues that pretrial
motions must be submitted by the current deadline, or else there will not be enough time to address
other pretrial issues before jury selection begins. Id.
Yet the prosecution’s own original scheduling proposal contemplated far less time between
the pretrial motion deadline and jury selection—a total of just 56 days. Doc. 23 at 2. Amazingly,
the timeline the government once championed as providing ample time for “the Court and parties
to fully litigate any pre-trial legal issues,” id. at 1, is now “unworkable,” even with an additional
month. Doc. 66 at 8. The reason for this sudden reversal is plain—the prosecution’s only interest
in this case is not justice, but undermining its administration’s primary political opponent, and the
leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election. To do so, it is more than willing to contradict Page 51 itself, “strike foul” blows, and employ “improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful
conviction.” Berger, 295 U.S. at 88.
In truth, although President Trump vehemently objects to the current trial setting, the
Requested Extension will have no effect on it, and the notion that a 60-day extension of a motion
deadline would “delay the trial until . . . 2026,” Doc. 66 at 7, is absurd on its face. Indeed, if the
Court grants the Requested Extension, nearly nothing else in this case will be affected. The new
deadline would still be before any other briefing deadlines in this case, including 19 days before
the current deadline for motions in limine and suppression motions, and over a month before
proposed jury instructions are due. 1 Rather than “vitiate the organizational principles underpinning
the Court’s selection of interim dates,” Doc. 66 at 7, the Requested Extension would allow counsel
the time necessary to ensure that all questions are fully researched, examined, and briefed.
As the Court is aware, defense counsel has devoted significant time and effort preparing
comprehensive filings addressing numerous weighty issues of first impression that go to the core
of our system of government and our most deeply held Constitutional rights, including in our
extensive motion to dismiss filed today. President Trump intends to do the same with his remaining
The prosecution relatedly argues that the Requested Extension should be denied because “pretrial
motions would not even be ripe for the Court to consider until January 5, 2024—well after the
deadlines for the parties to submit exhibits and in limine motions.” Doc. 66 at 7. This, however,
assumes: (1) pretrial motions must be decided before motions in limine may be filed, which is not
the case, (2) that President Trump would file all his pretrial motions on the Requested Extension
date, which is also incorrect, as our multiple, already-filed pretrial motions demonstrate, (3) that
the prosecution could not take its own advice and “at that time move under Rule 12(c) for relief
from the Pretrial Order,” Doc. 66 at 5, or (4) that the prosecution could not request expedited
consideration of any motions that it believes might affect its own future motions, especially given
the numerous motions for which the Court has already set expedited response and reply schedules,
including this motion. Finally, to the extent the Court believes the sequencing of other pretrial
events should be adjusted to account for a December 8 motion deadline, it can easily do so without
affecting the current trial setting. Page 52 motions, and, with the Requested Extension, will continue to file on a rolling basis, consistent with
orderly motion practice in a complex case.
The Requested Extension is a reasonable and typical accommodation that will enable
President Trump to review larger segments of the provided discovery and fully address the
complex questions raised by the unique circumstances of this case. It will not affect any other
deadlines or prejudice any party, and the case will continue to trial on schedule. Accordingly,
President Trump respectfully requests the Court overrule the prosecution’s objections and grant
the Requested Extension.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, as well as those set forth in the underlying Motion, President
Trump respectfully requests that the Court grant the Requested Extension and allow the parties
until December 8, 2023, to file pretrial motions.
Dated: October 5,
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Blanche, Esq. (PHV)
toddblanche@blanchelaw.com
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall St., Suite New York, NY (212) 716-
/s/John F. Lauro
John F. Lauro, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. jlauro@laurosinger.com
Gregory M. Singer, Esq. (PHV)
gsinger@laurosinger.com
Filzah I. Pavalon, Esq. (PHV)
fpavalon@laurosinger.com
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa St., 15th Floor
Tampa, FL (813) 222-Counsel for President Trump
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 1 of 52
APPEAL,CAT B
U.S. District Court
District of Columbia (Washington, DC)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:23−cr−00257−TSC−1
Case title: USA v. TRUMP
Date Filed: 08/01/2023
Assigned to: Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan
Defendant (1)
DONALD J. TRUMP
represented by John F. Lauro
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa Street
15th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 222−8990
Fax: (813) 222−8991
Email: jlauro@laurosinger.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Emil Bove
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall Street, Suite 4460
New York, NY 10005
212−716−1250
Email: emil.bove@blanchelaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Filzah I. Pavalon
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa Street
15th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 222−8990
Fax: (813) 222−8991
Email: fpavalon@laurosinger.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Retained
Todd Blanche
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
(212) 716−1250
1
PDF Page 3
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 2 of 52
Email: toddblanche@blanchelaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Pro Hac Vice
Pending Counts
Disposition
18 U.S.C. 371; CONSPIRACY
TO DEFRAUD THE UNITED
STATES; Conspiracy to Defraud
the United States
(1)
18 U.S.C. 1512(k);
TAMPERING WITH WITNESS,
VICTIM, OR AN INFORMANT;
Conspiracy to Obstruct an
Official Proceeding
(2)
18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2), 2;
TAMPERING WITH A
WITNESS, VICTIM OR
INFORMANT; Obstruction of,
and Attempt to Obstruct, an
Official Proceeding
(3)
18 U.S.C. 241; CONSPIRACY
AGAINST RIGHTS OF
CITIZENS; Conspiracy Against
Rights
(4)
Highest Offense Level
(Opening)
Felony
Terminated Counts
Disposition
None
Highest Offense Level
(Terminated)
None
Complaints
Disposition
None
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 3 of 52
Plaintiff
USA
represented by J.P. Cooney
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 252−7281
Email: joseph.cooney@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant U.S. Attorney
James Pearce
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CRIMINAL DIVISION APPELLATE
SECTION
Department of Justice, Criminal Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Suite 1250
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 532−4991
Fax: (202) 305−2121
Email: james.pearce@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant U.S. Attorney
Molly Gulland Gaston
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
(202) 252−7803
Email: molly.gaston@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant U.S. Attorney
Thomas Windom
555 Fourth Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
202−252−7846
Email: thomas.windom@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Designation: Assistant U.S. Attorney
Date Filed
#
Docket Text
08/01/2023
1
INDICTMENT as to DONALD J. TRUMP (1) count(s) 1, 2, 3, 4. (zltp) (Entered:
08/01/2023)
3
PDF Page 5
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 4 of 52
08/01/2023
3
MOTION to Seal Case by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Text
of Proposed Order)(zltp) (Entered: 08/01/2023)
08/01/2023
4
ORDER granting 3 Motion to Seal Case as to DONALD J. TRUMP (1). Signed by
Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya on 8/1/2023. (zltp) (Entered: 08/01/2023)
08/01/2023
Case unsealed as to DONALD J. TRUMP (zltp) (Entered: 08/01/2023)
08/03/2023
5
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: John F. Lauro appearing for DONALD
J. TRUMP (Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/03/2023)
08/03/2023
7
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Todd Blanche Filing fee $ 100, receipt
number ADCDC−10252226. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro,
John) (Entered: 08/03/2023)
08/03/2023
8
Summons Returned Executed on 8/3/2023 as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (ztl) (Entered:
08/04/2023)
08/03/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to Donald J. Trump: As required by Rule 5(f), the United States
is ordered to produce all exculpatory evidence to the defendant pursuant to Brady v.
Maryland and its progeny. Not doing so in a timely manner may result in sanctions,
including exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges and
contempt proceedings.Signed by Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya on
8/3/2023. (ztl) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
08/03/2023
ORAL MOTION for Speedy Trial by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (ztl) (Entered:
08/04/2023)
08/03/2023
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya:
Return on Summons/Initial Appearance/Arraignment as to Counts 1,2,3,4 held on
8/3/2023. Plea of Not Guilty entered as to all counts. The Court advised the
Government of its due process obligation under Rule 5(f).Status Conference set for
8/28/2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9− In Person before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan.
Bond Status of Defendant: Defendant Remain on Personal Recognizance; Court
Reporter: Jeff Hook; Defense Attorney: John Lauro and Todd Blanche; US Attorney:
Thomas Windom and Molly Gaston; Pretrial Officer: Takeysha Robinson. (ztl)
(Entered: 08/04/2023)
08/03/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: A status conference will be held in
this matter on August 28, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan. The court waives the requirement for Defendant to appear at that
conference. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file any motion for
excluding the time until the next status conference from the Speedy Trial Act clock by
August 8, 2023; and that the government shall file any opposition to that motion by
August 13, 2023. It is FURTHER ORDERED that by August 10, 2023, the
government shall file a brief proposing a trial date and providing an estimate of the
time required to set forth the prosecution's case in chief during that trial; and that by
August 17, 2023, Defendant shall file a response brief likewise proposing a trial date
and estimating, to the extent possible, the time required to set forth the defense at trial.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/3/2023. (ztl) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
08/03/2023
13
08/04/2023
9
ORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to DONALD J. TRUMP (1) Personal
Recognizance. Signed by Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya on 8/3/2023.
(Attachment: # 1 Appearance Bond) (znjb) (Entered: 08/07/2023)
4
PDF Page 6
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 5 of 52
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filzah I. Pavalon Filing fee $ 100,
receipt number ADCDC−10255735. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DONALD J. TRUMP.
(Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
08/04/2023
10
MOTION for Protective Order by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: #
1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/04/2023)
08/05/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by 5:00
PM on August 7, 2023, Defendant shall file a response to the government's 10 Motion
for Protective Order, stating Defendant's position on the Motion. If Defendant
disagrees with any portion of the government's proposed Protective Order, ECF No.
10−1, his response shall include a revised version of that Protective Order with any
modifications in redline. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/05/2023. (lcss)
(Entered: 08/05/2023)
08/05/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting 9 Motion for Leave to
Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filzah I. Pavalon is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in
this matter on behalf of Defendant. Counsel should register for e−filing via PACER
and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCrR 44.5(a). Click for instructions.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/05/2023. (lcss) (Entered: 08/05/2023)
08/05/2023
11
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 10 MOTION for
Protective Order , MOTION for Hearing by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1
Text of Proposed Order)(Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/05/2023)
08/05/2023
12
RESPONSE by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 11 MOTION for Extension of
Time to File Response/Reply as to 10 MOTION for Protective Order MOTION for
Hearing (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/05/2023)
08/05/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant's 11 Motion for Extension
of Time is hereby DENIED. Defendant may continue to confer with the government
regarding its proposed protective order before or after the August 7, 2023 5:00 PM
deadline for his response. The court will determine whether to schedule a hearing to
discuss the proposed protective order after reviewing Defendant's response and, if
included, his revised proposed protective order with modifications in redline. Signed
by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/05/2023. (lcss) (Entered: 08/05/2023)
08/06/2023
Set/Reset Deadline as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant shall file a response to the
government's 10 Motion for Protective Order, stating Defendant's position on the
Motion by 5:00 PM on August 7, 2023. If Defendant disagrees with any portion of the
government's proposed Protective Order, (Dkt. #10−1), his response shall include a
revised version of that Protective Order with any modifications in redline. (jth)
(Entered: 08/06/2023)
08/07/2023
14
RESPONSE by DONALD J. TRUMP re 10 MOTION for Protective Order (Lauro,
John) (Entered: 08/07/2023)
08/07/2023
15
REPLY in Support by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 10 MOTION for Protective
Order (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/07/2023)
08/07/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of the
government's 10 Motion for Protective Order and Defendant's 14 Response, as well as
the government's 15 Reply, the court will schedule a hearing on the parties' respective
proposals. The court will waive the requirement of Defendant's appearance.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that no later than 3:00 PM on August 8, 2023,
5
PDF Page 7
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 6 of 52
the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint notice of two dates and times on or
before August 11, 2023 when both parties are available for a hearing. Signed by Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/07/2023. (lcss) (Entered: 08/07/2023)
08/08/2023
08/08/2023
Set/Reset Deadline as to DONALD J. TRUMP: by 3:00 PM on 8/8/2023, the parties
shall meet and confer and file a joint notice of two dates and times on or before
8/11/2023 when both parties are available for a hearing. (jth) (Entered: 08/08/2023)
16
TRANSCRIPT OF RETURN ON SUMMONS/INITIAL
APPEARANCE/ARRAIGNMENT in case as to DONALD J. TRUMP before
Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya held on August 3, 2023. Page Numbers: 1 −
24. Date of Issuance: August 8, 2023. Court Reporter: Jeff Hook. Contact
Information: 202−354−3373 | jeff_hook@dcd.uscourts.gov. Transcripts may be
ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above.
After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats,
(multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one
days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal
identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be
made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy,
which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our
website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 8/29/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/8/2023.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/6/2023.(Hook, Jeff) (Entered: 08/08/2023)
08/08/2023
17
08/08/2023
08/08/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The court hereby schedules a hearing
on the parties' respective protective order proposals in this matter on August 11, 2023
at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9. The requirement of Defendant's appearance is waived
for this hearing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/08/2023. (lcc) (Entered:
08/08/2023)
18
08/09/2023
08/09/2023
08/09/2023
NOTICE by the Parties in Response to Court's August 7, 2023 Minute Order by USA
as to DONALD J. TRUMP re Order,, (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/08/2023)
MOTION to Exclude Time Under Speedy Trial Act by DONALD J. TRUMP.
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Motion)(Lauro, John) (Entered:
08/08/2023)
Set/Reset Hearing as to DONALD J. TRUMP: A Hearing on the Parties' Respective
Protective Order Proposals is set for August 11, 2023, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9.
before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. The requirement of Defendant's appearance is waived
for this hearing. (jth) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
19
ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE Updated Certificate of Good Standing by
DONALD J. TRUMP re 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Todd
Blanche Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC−10252226. Fee Status: Fee Paid.
(Lauro, John) Modified on 8/9/2023 (zhsj). (Entered: 08/09/2023)
NOTICE OF ERROR as to DONALD J. TRUMP regarding 19 Notice (Other). The
following error(s) need correction: Incorrect format (Letter)− correspondence is not
6
PDF Page 8
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 7 of 52
permitted (LCrR 49(f)(4)). Please refile as a Notice of Filing attaching your
Certificate of Good Standing to a Notice of Filing Document Containing the Caption
of the Court. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
08/09/2023
20
08/09/2023
NOTICE of Filing by DONALD J. TRUMP re 7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro
Hac Vice Todd Blanche Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC−10252226. Fee
Status: Fee Paid. (Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting 7 Motion for Leave to
Appear Pro Hac Vice Counsel should register for e−filing via PACER and file a
notice of appearance pursuant to LCrR 44.5(a). Click for instructions as to
DONALD J. TRUMP (1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Moxila A. Upadhyaya on
8/9/2023. (zcll) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
08/09/2023
21
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Filzah Pavalon appearing for DONALD
J. TRUMP (Pavalon, Filzah) (Entered: 08/09/2023)
08/10/2023
22
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Gregory M. Singer Filing fee $ 100,
receipt number ADCDC−10266892. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DONALD J. TRUMP.
(Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/10/2023
23
RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re
Order,,,, Set Deadlines,,, Government's Response to Court's August 3, 2023 Minute
Order (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/10/2023
25
MOTION for Hearing Pursuant to Classified Information Procedures Act by USA as
to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Windom,
Thomas) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/10/2023
26
Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re Motion for
Speedy Trial, 18 Motion to Exclude (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/10/2023
08/10/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting 22 Motion for Leave to
Appear Pro Hac Vice. Gregory M. Singer is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in
this matter on behalf of Defendant. Counsel should register for e−filing via PACER
and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCrR 44.5(a). Click for instructions.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 08/10/2023. (lcc) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
27
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Todd Blanche appearing for DONALD
J. TRUMP (Blanche, Todd) (Entered: 08/10/2023)
08/10/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The government's 24 Sealed Motion
for Leave to Submit Exhibit Ex Parte and Under Seal is hereby DENIED without
prejudice. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/10/2023. (zjd) (Entered:
08/10/2023)
08/11/2023
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan: Hearing on the
Parties' Respective Protective Order Proposals as to DONALD J. TRUMP held on
8/11/2023. The Court shall issue a protective order consistent with the rulings made
on the record. Oral Order of the Court granting Government's 25 Motion for Pretrial
Conference Pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act. This hearing shall
proceed on August 28, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9 before Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan. Bond Status of Defendant: remains on Personal Recognizance; Court
Reporter: Bryan A. Wayne; Defense Attorneys: John F. Lauro, Gregory M. Singer,
and Todd Blanche; US Attorneys: Thomas Windom and Molly G. Gaston. (zjd)
(Entered: 08/11/2023)
7
PDF Page 9
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 8 of 52
08/11/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The government's 25 Motion for
Hearing Pursuant to Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) is GRANTED.
Defense counsel consented to the motion during the August 11, 2023 hearing.
Accordingly, the court will hold a hearing pursuant to CIPA Section 2 during the
status conference currently scheduled for August 28, 2023. Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 8/11/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 08/11/2023)
08/11/2023
28
PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCOVERY AND AUTHORIZING
DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY as to DONALD J. TRUMP.
Consistent with the rulings made on the record during the hearing on August 11,
2023, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Government's 10 Motion for
Protective Order. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/11/2023. (zjd) (Entered:
08/11/2023)
08/11/2023
29
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING ON PROTECTIVE ORDER in case as to DONALD J.
TRUMP before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan held on August 11, 2023; Page Numbers:
1−73. Date of Issuance: 8/11/2023. Court Reporter: Bryan A. Wayne. Transcripts may
be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above.
After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats,
(multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one
days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal
identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be
made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy,
which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our
website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 9/1/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/11/2023.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/9/2023.(Wayne, Bryan) (Main Document
29 replaced on 8/23/2023) (zhsj). (Entered: 08/11/2023)
08/17/2023
30
RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT by DONALD J. TRUMP re Order,,,, Set
Deadlines,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5
Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Lauro, John) (Entered: 08/17/2023)
08/21/2023
31
MOTION for Leave to File Reply Brief by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP.
(Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Windom, Thomas)
(Entered: 08/21/2023)
08/21/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The government's 31 Motion for
Leave to File Reply is hereby GRANTED. The government may file a reply in
support of its brief proposing a trial date by August 22, 2023. The reply brief shall be
limited to six pages. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zjd) (Entered:
08/21/2023)
08/21/2023
32
08/21/2023
40
RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re
Order,,,, Set Deadlines,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, Set/Reset Deadlines,
(Reply Brief) (Windom, Thomas) (Entered: 08/21/2023)
8
PDF Page 10
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 9 of 52
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Motion of D.A. Feliciano for Leave to File Amicus
Curiae Brief Supporting Neither Plaintiff Nor Defendant as to DONALD J. TRUMP.
"This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts have in
rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
08/21/2023
41
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion for Judicial Notice Affidavit of Victor Shorkin
as to DONALD J. TRUMP. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its
filing. "This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts
have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in
criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
08/21/2023
42
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Motion to Intervene as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "This document is unavailable
as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts have in rare instances exercised their
discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules contemplate the filing of amicus
curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the
ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
08/21/2023
43
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as to DONALD J.
TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "This document
is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts have in rare instances
exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules contemplate the filing
of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart
from the ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing".. Signed by Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
08/21/2023
44
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Galaxy Bar Association as to DONALD J. TRUMP
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts have in rare instances
exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules contemplate the filing
of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart
from the ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya
S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
08/21/2023
45
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Amicus Curiae in Support of Donald Trump as to
DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.
"This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Although Courts have in
rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 08/29/2023)
9
PDF Page 11
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 10 of 52
08/21/2023
46
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Moton of Former Judges and Senior Legal Officials for
Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Government Proposed Trial Date
and Schedule as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court
denied its filing. "This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.
Although Courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party
submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor
the Local Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court
does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedures course by permitting
this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj) (Entered:
08/29/2023)
08/21/2023
81
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− MOTION TO INTERVENE THE OUTCOME OF
CASE AFFECTS DAVID REGINALD HERON AFTER MOTION INTERVENE
GRANTED [DAVID FILE SEPARATE MOTION − RULING TO HIRE
ATTORNEY) as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court
denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae
brief, the court is not persuaded that filing thissubmission is warranted. Although
courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party
submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor
the Local Criminal Rulescontemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time,
the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by
permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/21/2023. (zhsj)
(Entered: 10/06/2023)
08/22/2023
33
Consent MOTION to Appoint a Classified Information Security Officer by USA as to
DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed
Order)(Windom, Thomas) (Entered: 08/22/2023)
08/22/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The government's 33 Consent Motion
to Appoint a Classified Information Security Officer is hereby GRANTED. The court
will issue a separate sealed order designating the Officer and any alternate Officers.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/22/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 08/22/2023)
08/22/2023
35
Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order Pursuant to the Classified Information
Procedures Act by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of
Proposed Order Proposed CIPA Protective Order)(Windom, Thomas) (Entered:
08/22/2023)
08/22/2023
37
ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP granting 35 Unopposed MOTION for Protective
Order Pursuant to the Classified Information Procedures Act. Signed by Judge Tanya
S. Chutkan on 8/22/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 08/22/2023)
08/28/2023
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan: Status Conference
and Hearing Pursuant to Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) as to
DONALD J. TRUMP held on 8/28/2023. In the interests of justice (XT), and for the
reasons stated on the record, the Court grants Defendant's 18 Motion for Exclusion of
Time Under Speedy Trial Act. The time from 8/3/2023 through and including
8/28/2023 shall be excluded in computing the date for speedy trial in this case. Jury
Trial in this matter is set for March 4, 2024 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 9 before Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan. Bond Status of Defendant: appearance waived, remains on
personal recognizance; Court Reporter: Bryan Wayne; Defense Attorneys: John F.
Lauro and Todd Blanche; US Attorneys: Molly G. Gaston and Thomas Windom. (zjd)
(Entered: 08/28/2023)
10
PDF Page 12
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 11 of 52
08/28/2023
38
TRANSCRIPT OF 8/28/23 STATUS HEARING in case as to DONALD J. TRUMP
before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan held on August 28, 2023; Page Numbers: 1−61. Date
of Issuance: 8/28/2023. Court Reporter: Bryan A. Wayne. Transcripts may be ordered
by submitting the Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above.
After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats,
(multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one
days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal
identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be
made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy,
which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our
website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 9/18/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/28/2023.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/26/2023.(Wayne, Bryan) (Entered:
08/28/2023)
08/28/2023
39
09/05/2023
PRETRIAL ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of the parties'
Proposed Briefing Schedules 23 30 32 , the court hereby sets the following pretrial
schedule. All pre−trial motions, excluding motions in limine, due 10/9/23, oppositions
due 10/23/23, and replies due 11/6/23. Motions in limine and Suppression Motions
due 12/27/23, oppositions due 1/9/24, and replies due 1/22/24. Not later than 12/4/23,
the government shall provide notice of evidence it intends to offer pursuant to Fed. R.
Evid. 404(b). Parties shall exchange expert witnesses on 12/11/23. Parties shall
exchange exhibit lists by 12/18/23 and file any objections to exhibits by 1/3/24;
replies due 1/9/24. Proposed jury instructions and voir dire questions due 1/15/24.
Parties shall exchange witness lists by 2/19/24. Trial will commence on 3/4/24 at 9:30
a.m. in Courtroom 9 unless otherwise specified. See Order for additional details and
instructions. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/28/2023. (zjd) Modified on
10/6/2023: See 82 Opinion and Order for amendments made to this order. (zjd).
(Entered: 08/28/2023)
VACATED PURSUANT TO MINUTE ORDER FILED 9/5/2023.....MINUTE
ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Government's 47 Motion for Leave to File
Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on Public Docket is
hereby GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the
unredacted copy of the Government's Motion (ECF No. 47−1), attaching Exhibit 1 to
the Government's Motion (ECF No. 47−2). The Clerk of the Court is further directed
to file on the public docket the redacted copy of the Government's Motion (ECF No.
47−3), attaching a placeholder sheet for Exhibit 1 to the Motion (ECF No. 47−4), and
the two proposed orders referenced in the Motion (ECF Nos. 47−5 and 47−6). Signed
by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/5/2023. (zjd) Modified on 9/5/2023 (zjd). (Entered:
09/05/2023)
09/05/2023
48
MOTION to Vacate by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro, John) (Entered: 09/05/2023)
09/05/2023
49
Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 48 Motion to
Vacate (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 09/05/2023)
11
PDF Page 13
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 12 of 52
09/05/2023
09/11/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Defendant's 48 Motion to Vacate is
hereby GRANTED. The court's previous Minute Order of September 5, 2023 is
VACATED. Defendant shall respond to the government's 47 Motion for Leave to File
by September 11, 2023; the government may file a Reply by September 13, 2023.
Any opposition or reply may be filed under seal. Going forward, all motions,
including motions for leave to file, must (1) indicate whether the movant has
conferred with opposing counsel, and (2) state the nonmovant's position on the
motion, if known. As it has done here, the court may require briefing on motions for
leave to file under seal on a timeline shorter than the default periods provided for in
the Local Criminal Rules. However, all such briefing may be filed under seal without
further order of the court. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/5/2023. (zjd)
(Entered: 09/05/2023)
50
09/11/2023
MOTION for Recusal by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript
Excerpt 1, # 2 Exhibit Transcript Excerpt 2)(Lauro, John) (Entered: 09/11/2023)
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of Defendant's 50
Motion for Recusal, it is hereby ORDERED that the government shall file any
opposition no later than September 14, 2023, and the defense shall file any reply
within three calendar days from the filing date of the government's opposition. All
other deadlines set by the court remain in effect. Defense counsel is reminded of the
requirement to confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion and to indicate
whether the motion is opposed. See 09/05/2023 Second Minute Order. Future motions
that fail to comply with that requirement may be denied without prejudice. Signed by
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/11/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 09/11/2023)
09/13/2023
77
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Application for Relief in a Criminal Case by a Person
not a Party−Applicant Charles E. Hill as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on
9/13/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/13/2023
78
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Application for Relief in a Criminal Case by a Person
not a Party−Applicant Charles E. Hill as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to
file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling this submission is
warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretionto permit
third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedurenor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs.
At this time, the courtdoes not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural
course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/13/2023.
(zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/13/2023
79
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Continued
Application to Arrest Protective Order Dated: 8/11/23 as to DONALD J. TRUMP
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a
motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling
this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their
discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of
amicus curiae briefs. At this time,the court does not find it necessary to depart from
the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/13/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/13/2023
80
12
PDF Page 14
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 13 of 52
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Letter Regarding Defendant's Right to Attend Trial as to
DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.
"Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not
persuaded that filing this submission is warranted. Although courtshave in rare
instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinaryprocedural course by permitting this filing"
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/13/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/13/2023
83
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Motion to Decriminalize as to DONALD J. TRUMP.
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/13/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/13/2023
84
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Petition for Intervention as to DONALD J. TRUMP
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a
motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing
this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rareinstances exercised their
discretion to permit third−partysubmissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal
Rulesof Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rulescontemplate the filing of
amicus curiae briefs. At thistime, the court does not find it necessary to depart
fromthe ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya
S. Chutkan on 9/13/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
09/14/2023
53
MOTION FOR BRIEFING SCHEDULE as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro, John)
Modified on 9/15/2023 (zhsj). (Entered: 09/14/2023)
09/14/2023
54
Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 50 Motion for
Recusal (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 09/14/2023)
09/15/2023
55
Opinion and Order as to DONALD J. TRUMP granting the government's 47 Motion
for Leave to File Unredacted Motion Under Seal, and to File Redacted Motion on
Public Docket, and granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 53 Motion for
Briefing Schedule. Defendant shall file any Opposition to the government's
substantive Motion by September 25, 2023, and the government shall file any Reply
by September 30, 2023. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the
unredacted copy of the government's substantive Motion (ECF No. 47−1), attaching
Exhibit 1 to the that Motion (ECF No. 47−2) under seal as well. The Clerk of the
Court is further directed to file on the public docket the redacted copy of the
government's Motion (ECF No. 47−3), attaching a placeholder sheet for Exhibit 1 to
the Motion (ECF No. 47−4), and attaching the two proposed orders referenced in the
Motion (ECF Nos. 47−5 and 47−6). Finally, the Clerk of the Court is directed to
unseal Defendant's motion, ECF No. 53. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Tanya
S. Chutkan on 9/15/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 09/15/2023)
09/15/2023
57
MOTION to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice these Proceedings
by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed
Order Exhibit 47−5, # 3 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47−6) (zhsj) (Attachment 2
replaced on 9/21/2023) (zhsj). (Entered: 09/15/2023)
Main Document
Attachment # 1 Exhibit
Attachment # 2 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47−5
13
PDF Page 15
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 14 of 52
Attachment # 3 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit 47−6
09/17/2023
58
REPLY in Support by DONALD J. TRUMP re 50 MOTION for Recusal (Lauro,
John) (Entered: 09/17/2023)
09/25/2023
59
NOTICE of Filing by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP (Attachments: # 1 Cover
Sheet)(Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 09/25/2023)
09/25/2023
60
Memorandum in Opposition by DONALD J. TRUMP re 57 Motion for Miscellaneous
Relief, (Lauro, John) (Entered: 09/25/2023)
09/27/2023
61
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP denying 50
Defendant's Motion for Recusal of District Judge Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). See
attached memorandum opinion and order for full details. Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 09/27/2023)
09/27/2023
62
MOTION for Extension of Time to File CIPA Sect. 5 and response to ex parte notice
by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Blanche, Todd) (Entered: 09/27/2023)
09/27/2023
67
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Petition for Writ of Error Corum Noblis and
Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof as to DONALD J. TRUMP. This document
is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave
to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this submission is
warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit
third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae
briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary
procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on
9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/2023
68
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Motion to Intervene as to DONALD J. TRUMP. This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion
for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this
submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their
discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases,neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of
amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does notfind it necessary to depart from
the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/2023
69
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Application for Relief in a Criminal Case by a Person
not a Party−Applicant Charles E. Hill as to DONALD J. TRUMP. This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to
file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this submission is
warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit
third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae
briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary
procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on
9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/2023
70
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED−Motion for Reconsideration of Order Date 8/21/2023 as
to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.
"Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not
persuaded that filing this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare
14
PDF Page 16
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 15 of 52
instances exercised their discretion to permit third−partysubmissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/2023
71
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion to Intervene as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion
for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this
submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their
discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rulescontemplate the filing of
amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from
the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/2023
72
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion of D.A. Feliciano for Leave to File Amicus
Curiae Brief Supporting Neither Plaintiff Nor Defendant as to DONALD J. TRUMP
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Although courts have in
rare instances exercised theirdiscretion to permit third−party submissions in
criminalcases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure northe Local Criminal
Rules contemplate the filing of amicuscuriae briefs. At this time, the court does not
find it necessaryto depart from the ordinary procedural course by permittingthis
filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/2023
73
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− New Motion to Intervene−New Fresh Most Recent
Evidence Relate 6/4/2009 &11/4/2008 as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to
file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling this submission is
warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion topermit
third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure northe Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs.
At this time, the court does notfind it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural
course by permitting this filing".. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023.
(zhsj) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
09/27/2023
86
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis as to DONALD
J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if
construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not
persuaded that filing this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare
instances exercised their discretion to permit third−party submissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/2023
87
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion to Intervene as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Even if construed as a motion
for leave to file anamicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling this
submission is warranted. Although courtshave in rare instances exercised their
discretion topermit third−party submissions in criminal cases,neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure northe Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing
ofamicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does notfind it necessary to depart from
15
PDF Page 17
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 16 of 52
the ordinaryprocedural course by permitting this filing." Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/2023
88
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Proof of Service as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion
for leave to file an amicuscuriae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing
thissubmission is warranted. Although courts have in rareinstances exercised their
discretion to permit third−partysubmissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal
Rulesof Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rulescontemplate the filing of
amicus curiae briefs. At thistime, the court does not find it necessary to depart
fromthe ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing".. Signed by Judge Tanya
S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/2023
89
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion for Reconsideration of Order Date 8/21/2023 as
to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.
"Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicuscuriae brief, the court is not
persuaded that filing thissubmission is warranted. Although courts have in
rareinstances exercised their discretion to permit third−partysubmissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rulesof Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal
Rulescontemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At thistime, the court does not
find it necessary to depart fromthe ordinary procedural course by permitting this
filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/2023
90
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion to Intervene as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Even if construed as a motion
for leave to file anamicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling this
submission is warranted. Although courtshave in rare instances exercised their
discretion topermit third−party submissions in criminal cases,neither the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure northe Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing
ofamicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court doesnot find it necessary to depart from
the ordinaryprocedural course by permitting this filing." Signed by Judge Tanya S.
Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/2023
91
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion of D.A. Feliciano for Leave to File Amicus
Curiae Brief Supporting Neither Plaintiff Nor Defendant as to DONALD J. TRUMP
This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Although courts have in
rare instances exercised theirdiscretion to permit third−party submissions in
criminalcases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure northe Local Criminal
Rules contemplate the filing of amicuscuriae briefs. At this time, the court does not
find it necessaryto depart from the ordinary procedural course by permittingthis
filing." Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/27/2023
92
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− New Motion to Intervene−New Fresh Most Recent
Evidence Relate 6/4/2009 &11/4/2008 as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is
unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to
file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded thatfiling this submission is
warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion topermit
third−party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure northe Local Criminal Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs.
At this time, the court does notfind it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural
course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/27/2023.
(zhsj) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
09/28/2023
63
16
PDF Page 18
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 17 of 52
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions by DONALD J. TRUMP.
(Lauro, John) (Entered: 09/28/2023)
09/28/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by
October 3, 2023, the government shall file any opposition to both Defendant's 62
Motion for Access to CIPA § 4 Filing and an Adjournment of the CIPA § 5 Deadline
and Defendant's 63 Motion for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions; and that
the defense shall file any reply within three calendar days from the filing date of the
government's opposition. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/28/2023. (zjd)
(Entered: 09/28/2023)
09/29/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The court hereby schedules a hearing
on the government's 57 Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not
Prejudice These Proceedings on October 16, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9. The
requirement of Defendant's appearance is waived for this hearing. Signed by Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/29/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 09/29/2023)
09/29/2023
64
REPLY in Support by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 57 MOTION to Ensure that
Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice these Proceedings (Gaston, Molly)
(Entered: 09/29/2023)
10/02/2023
65
Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 62 Motion for
Extension of Time to File CIPA Section 5 and Response to Ex Parte Notice (Windom,
Thomas) (Entered: 10/02/2023)
10/02/2023
66
Memorandum in Opposition by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP re 63 Motion for
Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions (Windom, Thomas) (Entered: 10/02/2023)
10/03/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: By October 10, 2023, defense counsel
John F. Lauro and Gregory M. Singer shall initiate and complete all security clearance
tasks as directed by the Litigation Security Group of the U.S. Department of Justice,
and thereafter file a Notice of Compliance by October 11, 2023. The Notice shall also
state whether the defense anticipates that any other of its members, whose assistance
is reasonably required, will need to obtain a security clearance. Signed by Judge
Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/3/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/03/2023)
10/03/2023
Set/Reset Deadlines as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Notice of Compliance due by
10/11/2023. (mac) (Entered: 10/03/2023)
10/04/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that court will
hold an ex parte Classified Information Procedures Act hearing with the defense at a
time and place arranged with defense counsel. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on
10/4/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/04/2023)
10/05/2023
74
MOTION to Dismiss Case by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro, John) (Entered:
10/05/2023)
10/05/2023
75
REPLY in Support by DONALD J. TRUMP re 63 MOTION for Extension of Time to
File Pretrial Motions (Lauro, John) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
10/05/2023
76
REPLY in Support by DONALD J. TRUMP re 62 MOTION for Extension of Time to
File CIPA Sect. 5 and response to ex parte notice (Lauro, John) (Entered: 10/05/2023)
10/06/2023
82
OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's 62 Motion for Access to CIPA § 4 Filing and An Adjournment of the
CIPA § 5 Deadline; granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 63 Motion for
17
PDF Page 19
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 18 of 52
Extension of Time to File Pretrial Motions; and amending in part the court's 39
Pretrial Order. Defense objections to ex parte nature of government's CIPA § 4
submission due October 11, 2023; government response due October 18, 2023.
Defense CIPA § 5 notice due on October 26, 2023, with supplemental notices due
within 20 days of receiving access to additional classified discovery materials.
Dispositive motions, including motions to dismiss, due October 23, 2023; oppositions
due within 14 days of motion's filing; replies due within 10 days of opposition's filing.
Rule 17(c) motions and motions to compel due November 9, 2023; oppositions due
November 24, 2023; replies due December 1, 2023. See Opinion & Order for details.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/6/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/06/2023)
10/06/2023
94
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Notice of Appeal as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even assuming a third party
could file a notice of appeal in a criminal case which the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure and Local Criminal Rules do not contemplate, this filing does not comply
with Rule 3(c) of the Circuit Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/6/2023. (zhsj) (Entered:
10/10/2023)
10/06/2023
96
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Continued Judge
Chutkan Impermissibly Held First Amendment to be Unconstitutional as to DONALD
J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Even if
construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not
persuaded thatfiling this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare
instances exercised their discretionto permit third−party submissions in criminal
cases, neither the Federal Rules of CriminalProcedure nor the Local Criminal Rules
contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time,the court does not find it
necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permittingthis filing".
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/6/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/09/2023
85
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Emil Bove Filing fee $ 100, receipt
number ADCDC−10406576. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Lauro,
John) (Entered: 10/09/2023)
10/10/2023
93
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Notice of Appeal as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even assuming a third
partycould file a notice of appeal in acriminal cases, which theFederal Rules of
CriminalProcedure and and LocalCriminal Rules do notcontemplate, this filing does
notcomply with Rule 3(c) of theCircuit Rules of the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the
District ofColumbia Circuit".. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/6/2023. (zhsj)
(Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/10/2023
95
LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Notice of Appeal as to DONALD J. TRUMP This
document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even assuming a third
partycould file a notice of appeal in acriminal cases, which theFederal Rules of
CriminalProcedure and and LocalCriminal Rules do notcontemplate, this filing does
notcomply with Rule 3(c) of theCircuit Rules of the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the
District ofColumbia Circuit".. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/6/2023. (zhsj)
(Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/10/2023
97
MOTION for Order for Fair and Protective Jury Procedures by USA as to DONALD
J. TRUMP. (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/10/2023
98
18
PDF Page 20
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 19 of 52
MOTION for Formal Pretrial Notice of the Defendant's Intent to Rely on
Advice−of−Counsel Defense by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1
Text of Proposed Order)(Windom, Thomas) (Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/10/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by
October 20, 2023, the defense shall file any opposition to the government's 97 Motion
for Fair and Protective Jury Procedures and 98 Motion for Formal Pretrial Notice of
the Defendant's Intent to Rely on Advice−of−Counsel Defense; and that the
government shall file any reply in support of those motions by October 25, 2023.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/10/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/10/2023)
10/11/2023
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting 85 Motion for Leave to
Appear Pro Hac Vice. Emil Bove is hereby admitted pro hac vice to appear in this
matter on behalf of Defendant. Counsel should register for e−filing via PACER
and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCrR 44.5(a). Click for instructions.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/11/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/11/2023)
10/11/2023
99
10/11/2023
MOTION for Discovery (PRE−TRIAL RULE 17(c) SUBPOENAS) by DONALD J.
TRUMP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit,
# 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit)(Lauro,
John) (Entered: 10/11/2023)
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: It is hereby ORDERED that by
October 25, 2023, the government shall file any opposition to Defendant's 99 Motion
for Pre−Trial Rule 17(c) Subpoenas; and the defense shall file any reply in support of
its motion by November 1, 2023. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/11/2023.
(zjd) (Entered: 10/11/2023)
10/11/2023
100
NOTICE of Compliance by DONALD J. TRUMP re Order,,, Set Deadlines,, (Lauro,
John) (Entered: 10/11/2023)
10/11/2023
101
MOTION to Access CIPA Section 4 Filing by DONALD J. TRUMP. (Blanche, Todd)
(Entered: 10/11/2023)
10/13/2023
102
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Emil Bove appearing for DONALD J.
TRUMP (Bove, Emil) (Entered: 10/13/2023)
10/16/2023
10/16/2023
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tanya S. Chutkan: Motion Hearing
as to DONALD J. TRUMP held on 10/16/2023 re 57 Motion to Ensure that
Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings. Order forthcoming.
Bond Status of Defendant: appearance waived, remains on personal recognizance;
Court Reporter: Bryan Wayne; Defense Attorneys: John F. Lauro and Todd Blanche;
US Attorneys: Molly G. Gaston and Thomas Windom. (zjd) (Entered: 10/16/2023)
103
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING in case as to DONALD J. TRUMP before
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan held on October 16, 2023; Page Numbers: 1−86. Date of
Issuance: 10/16/2023. Court Reporter: Bryan A. Wayne. Transcripts may be ordered
by submitting the Transcript Order Form
For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the
courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above.
After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats,
(multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.
19
PDF Page 21
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 20 of 52
NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one
days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal
identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be
made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy,
which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our
website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.
Redaction Request due 11/6/2023. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/16/2023.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/14/2024.(Wayne, Bryan) (Entered:
10/16/2023)
10/16/2023
104
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE James Pearce appearing for USA.
(Pearce, James) (Main Document 104 replaced on 10/17/2023) (zhsj). (Entered:
10/16/2023)
10/17/2023
105
OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting in part and denying in
part the government's 57 Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not
Prejudice These Proceedings; and denying as moot the government's sealed 56
Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings.
Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 10/17/2023. (zjd) (Entered: 10/17/2023)
10/17/2023
106
NOTICE OF APPEAL (Interlocutory) by DONALD J. TRUMP re 105 Memorandum
Opinion,, Order,. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ADCDC−10425241. Fee Status:
Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Lauro, John) (Entered: 10/17/2023)
20
PDF Page 22
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 21 of 52
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case No. 1:23-cr-00257-TSC
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Defendant President Donald J. Trump hereby provides notice that he appeals to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the Opinion and Order of the District
Court dated October 17, 2023, ECF No. 105.
Dated: October 17, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Blanche, Esq. (PHV)
toddblanche@blanchelaw.com
Emil Bove, Esq. (PHV)
Emil.Bove@blanchelaw.com
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall St., Suite 4460
New York, NY 10005
(212) 716-1250
/s/John F. Lauro
John F. Lauro, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 392830
jlauro@laurosinger.com
Gregory M. Singer, Esq. (PHV)
gsinger@laurosinger.com
Filzah I. Pavalon, Esq. (PHV)
fpavalon@laurosinger.com
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa St., 15th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 222-8990
Counsel for President Trump
1
21
PDF Page 23
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 22 of 52
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
Criminal Action No. 23-257 (TSC)
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons set forth below and during the hearing in this case on October 16, 2023,
the government’s Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial Statements Do Not Prejudice These
Proceedings, ECF No. 57, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Under binding Supreme Court precedent, this court “must take such steps by rule and
regulation that will protect [its] processes from prejudicial outside interferences.” Sheppard v.
Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966). The First Amendment does not override that obligation.
“Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential
requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice. But it must not be allowed to divert
the trial from the very purpose of a court system to adjudicate controversies, both criminal and
civil, in the calmness and solemnity of the courtroom according to legal procedures.” Id. at 350–
51 (cleaned up); Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 32 n.18 (1984) (“Although
litigants do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the courthouse door, those rights may
be subordinated to other interests that arise in this setting. For instance, on several occasions this
Court has approved restriction on the communications of trial participants where necessary to
ensure a fair trial for a criminal defendant.”) (quotation omitted). Here, alternative measures
Page 1 of 3
22
PDF Page 24
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 23 of 52
such as careful voir dire, jury sequestration, and cautionary jury instructions are sufficient to
remedy only some of the potential prejudices that the government’s motion seeks to address.
In order to safeguard the integrity of these proceedings, it is necessary to impose certain
restrictions on public statements by interested parties. Undisputed testimony cited by the
government demonstrates that when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on
matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed. See ECF
No. 57 at 3–5. Since his indictment, and even after the government filed the instant motion,
Defendant has continued to make similar statements attacking individuals involved in the judicial
process, including potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff. See id. at 6–12. Defendant
has made those statements to national audiences using language communicating not merely that
he believes the process to be illegitimate, but also that particular individuals involved in it are
liars, or “thugs,” or deserve death. Id.; ECF No. 64 at 9–10. The court finds that such statements
pose a significant and immediate risk that (1) witnesses will be intimidated or otherwise unduly
influenced by the prospect of being themselves targeted for harassment or threats; and (2)
attorneys, public servants, and other court staff will themselves become targets for threats and
harassment. And that risk is largely irreversible in the age of the Internet; once an individual is
publicly targeted, even revoking the offending statement may not abate the subsequent threats,
harassment, or other intimidating effects during the pretrial as well as trial stages of this case.
The defense’s position that no limits may be placed on Defendant’s speech because he is
engaged in a political campaign is untenable, and the cases it cites do not so hold. The Circuit
Courts in both United States v. Brown and United States v. Ford recognized that First
Amendment rights must yield to the imperative of a fair trial. 218 F.3d 415, 424 (2000); 830
F.2d 596, 599 (1987). Unlike the district courts in those cases, however, this court has found that
Page 2 of 3
23
PDF Page 25
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 24 of 52
even amidst his political campaign, Defendant’s statements pose sufficiently grave threats to the
integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means, and it has tailored
its order to meet the force of those threats. Brown, 218 F.3d at 428–30; Ford, 830 F.2d at 600.
Thus, limited restrictions on extrajudicial statements are justified here. The bottom line is that
equal justice under law requires the equal treatment of criminal defendants; Defendant’s
presidential candidacy cannot excuse statements that would otherwise intolerably jeopardize
these proceedings.
Accordingly, and pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), it is hereby ORDERED that:
All interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their counsel, are
prohibited from making any public statements, or directing others to make any
public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his
staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other
supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of
their testimony.
This Order shall not be construed to prohibit Defendant from making statements criticizing the
government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice;
statements asserting that Defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution
is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of
Defendant’s current political rivals, such as former Vice President Pence.
In addition, the sealed version of the government’s Motion to Ensure that Extrajudicial
Statements Do Not Prejudice These Proceedings, ECF No. 56, is DENIED as moot.
Date: October 17, 2023
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
Page 3 of 3
24
PDF Page 26
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 25 of 52
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC)
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO ENSURE THAT EXTRAJUDICIAL
STATEMENTS DO NOT PREJUDICE THESE PROCEEDINGS
Since the grand jury returned an indictment in this case, the defendant has repeatedly and
widely disseminated public statements attacking the citizens of the District of Columbia, the Court,
prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. Through his statements, the defendant threatens to
undermine the integrity of these proceedings and prejudice the jury pool, in contravention of the
“undeviating rule” that in our justice system a jury’s verdict is to “be induced only by evidence
and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence.” Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S.
333, 351 (1966) (quotations omitted). In accordance with the Court’s duty to “protect [its]
processes from prejudicial outside interferences,” id. at 363, the Government requests that the
Court take the following immediate measures to ensure the due administration of justice and a fair
and impartial jury: (1) enter a narrowly tailored order pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) that
restricts certain prejudicial extrajudicial statements; and (2) enter an order through which the Court
can ensure that if either party conducts a jury study involving contact with the citizens of this
District, the jury study is conducted in a way that will not prejudice the venire. The Government
obtained the defendant’s position from counsel for the defendant, and he opposes this motion.
25
PDF Page 27
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 26 of 52
I.
Background
As set forth in the indictment, after election day in 2020, the defendant launched a
disinformation campaign in which he publicly and widely broadcast knowingly false claims that
there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the presidential election, and that he had actually
won. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 4. In service of his criminal conspiracies, through false public statements,
the defendant sought to erode public faith in the administration of the election and intimidate
individuals who refuted his lies. ECF No. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 28, 31-32, 42, 44, 74, 97, 100, 104, 111. The
defendant is now attempting to do the same thing in this criminal case—to undermine confidence
in the criminal justice system and prejudice the jury pool through disparaging and inflammatory
attacks on the citizens of this District, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. The
defendant’s conduct presents a “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” to these proceedings,
and the Court can and should take steps to restrict such harmful extrajudicial statements. Gentile
v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1075 (1991).
A. The Defendant Has a History of Inflammatory and Misleading Statements That
He Knew or Should Have Known Would Cause Others to Harass and Harm
Perceived Critics or Adversaries
The defendant has an established practice of issuing inflammatory public statements
targeted at individuals or institutions that present an obstacle or challenge to him. In the period
between the presidential election on November 3, 2020, and the congressional certification
proceeding on January 6, 2021, the defendant trained his focus on the election system, including
election officials and other individuals carrying out civic duties to implement fair elections in
various states. As a result, the defendant engendered widespread mistrust in the administration of
the election, and the individuals whom he targeted were subject to threats and harassment.
-226
PDF Page 28
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 27 of 52
Examples of this pattern, from the indictment and the Government’s investigation, include
the following:
•
whom the defendant specifically targeted
on the social media platform Twitter because
had publicly stated that there was
no evidence of election fraud.
See ECF No. 1, Indictment, ¶ 42;
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1326525851752656898.
After
the
defendant’s tweet,
observed an increase in the volume and severity of threats
against him and his family. See House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th
Attack on the United States Capitol (“House Select Committee”), 6/13/22 Hr’g, at 1:47:14–
1:47:43 (“After the President tweeted at me by name, calling me out the way that he did,
the threats became much more specific, much more graphic, and included not just me by
name but included members of my family by name, their ages, our address, pictures of our
home. Just every bit of detail that you could imagine. That was what changed with that
tweet.”). 1
•
during the
2020 election, whose home address was listed on the internet and whose family was
threatened with violence after the defendant and surrogates publicly derogated
for certifying the election. See Exhibit 1 at 3-6.
•
during the 2020
election, who received threatening communications after
certified the election
and the defendant issued public posts about them. See Exhibit 1 at 26-27 (
).
•
who required additional police
protection after the defendant targeted
on Twitter for
rejecting one of the defendant’s election challenges. See Exhibit 1 at 41-44.
The defendant knows that when he publicly attacks individuals and institutions, he inspires
others to perpetrate threats and harassment against his targets. On December 1, 2020, as the
defendant was fueling an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger regarding the election,
a Georgia election official held a widely televised press conference in which he pleaded with the
1
See https://january6th-benniethompson.house.gov/legislation/hearings/06132022-selectcommittee-hearing.
-327
PDF Page 29
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 28 of 52
defendant to stop, stating that if he did not, “Someone’s going to get hurt, someone’s going to get
shot, someone’s going to get killed.” 2 The defendant did not stop. Instead, he continued—even
to the present—to attack individuals whom he knows already suffered threats and harassment as a
result of his words. For instance:
•
On November 17, 2020, the defendant fired
, his appointed director of the
Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
after
made statements assuring the public of the integrity of the election. See ECF
No. 1 ¶ 11(d). Later that month, after
appeared on a news program and again stated
publicly that the presidential election had been secure, the defendant attacked him on
Twitter, and on November 30, an agent of the defendant publicly stated that
“should
be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot.” 3 This statement was so dangerous
that the above-described Georgia election official mentioned it in his press conference
when warning the defendant and others that such rhetoric would lead to violence. 4
and his family received death threats and had to evacuate their home, and through a
December 8, 2020 lawsuit put the defendant on explicit notice of the threats and harassment
the defendant had caused. 5 The defendant continued to publicly attack
anyway.
•
In 2020, the defendant and co-conspirators 6 spread false accusations of misconduct against
, a Georgia election worker, and
. As
a result,
were inundated by threats. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 26.
subsequently described the pernicious threats and intimidation she endured as a result of
these false allegations in an interview with the House Select Committee, which publicly
released a transcript of the interview on December 29, 2022. See Select Committee Press
2
See NBC News, Georgia Secretary of State Press Conference (Dec. 1, 2020),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH9FnY0qvNI.
3
See CBC News, 60 Minutes (Nov. 29, 2020), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electionresults-security-chris-krebs-60-minutes-2020-11-29/; Newsmax, Howie Carr Radio Show (Nov.
30, 2020).
4
See NBC News, Georgia Secretary of State Press Conference (Dec. 1, 2020),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH9FnY0qvNI.
5
See Case No. 484243V (Montgomery County, Maryland Circuit Court), Complaint (Dec.
8, 2020).
6
A court in this District recently entered a default judgment against one of the defendant’s
co-conspirators in a lawsuit filed against him by
for his defamatory false
claims. See 21-cv-3354 (BAH), ECF No. 93, Order (Aug. 30, 2023).
-428
PDF Page 30
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 29 of 52
Release, Release of Select Committee Materials (Dec. 29, 2022); 7 Select Committee
Transcript at 8 (“Do you know how it feels to have the President of the United States to
target you? The President of the United States is supposed to represent every American,
not to target one. But he targeted me . . . a small-business owner, a mother, a proud
American citizen who stood up to help Fulton County run an election in the middle of the
pandemic. . . . And, lo and behold, when someone as powerful as the President of the United
States eggs on a mob, that mob will come. They came for us with their cruelty, their threats,
their racism, and their hats. They haven’t stopped even today.”). 8 Within ten days of the
public release of
interview transcript, the defendant—despite the known threats
the election worker had received, and the established falsity of the claims of misconduct—
publicly attacked
again on Truth Social through a series of repeated false claims. 9
•
Likewise, the defendant recently renewed attacks on former Georgia Lieutenant Governor
, whose harassment the defendant inspired in the aftermath of the election.
In December 2020, after Georgia’s Governor and Lieutenant Governor rejected the
defendant’s calls to appoint the defendant’s illegitimate electors in Georgia, the defendant
issued a post labeling
a “Rino Never Trumper” who was “dumb or corrupt” and
urged, “We need every great Georgian to call him out!”
See
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/ 1336148836495069185. Thereafter,
reported, he received death threats. 10 Nonetheless, last month, on August 14, 2023, when
it was publicly reported that
had been called to testify before a state grand jury in
Fulton County, Georgia, the defendant posted on Truth Social that “[h]e shouldn’t” testify.
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110888087440060991.
The defendant continues these attacks on individuals precisely because he knows that in doing so,
he is able to roil the public and marshal and prompt his supporters. As he acknowledged in a
televised town hall on May 10, 2023, his supporters listen to him “like no one else.” 11
7
See https://january6th-benniethompson.house.gov/news/press-releases/release-selectcommittee-materials-4.
8
https://january6th-benniethompson.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/
files/20220531_
.pdf.
9
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109623460421938942;
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109623536630848334;
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109623623674619588.
10
MSNBC, Morning Joe, https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/georgia-slieutenant-governor-won-t-seek-reelection-turns-focus-to-gop-2-0-112276037799.
11
See CNN, Transcript of CNN’s Town Hall with Former President Donald Trump (May
11, 2023), https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/11/politics/transcript-cnn-town-hall-trump/index.html.
-529
PDF Page 31
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 30 of 52
B. Since the Indictment, the Defendant Has Deployed Misleading and Inflammatory
Statements About this Case to Undermine Confidence in the Justice System and
Prejudice the Jury Pool
The defendant made clear his intent to issue public attacks related to this case when, the
day after his arraignment, he posted a threatening message on Truth Social:
And he has made good on his threat. Since the indictment in this case, the defendant has spread
disparaging and inflammatory public posts on Truth Social on a near-daily basis regarding the
citizens of the District of Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses. Like his
previous public disinformation campaign regarding the 2020 presidential election, the defendant’s
recent extrajudicial statements are intended to undermine public confidence in an institution—the
judicial system—and to undermine confidence in and intimidate individuals—the Court, the jury
pool, witnesses, and prosecutors. Below are select examples of the defendant’s disparaging and
inflammatory Truth Social posts.
i. Posts Attacking, Undermining, and Attempting to Intimidate the Court and the
Jury Pool
The defendant has posted repeated, inflammatory attacks on the judicial system, the Court,
and the citizens of the District of Columbia who comprise the jury pool in this case. The defendant
has made baseless claims—cited or inserted below—that the justice system is “rigged” 12 against
him; that the Court is “a fraud dressed up as a judge in Washington, D.C. who is a radical Obama
12
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110857162338915853.
-630
PDF Page 32
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 31 of 52
hack” or is a “biased, Trump-hating judge”; 13 and that he cannot get a fair trial from the residents
of this “filthy and crime ridden” District that “is over 95% anti-Trump.” 14
13
See re-post of https://truthsocial.com/@marklevinshow/posts/110973488250507373;
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110980188106641474.
14
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110823476578708544.
-731
PDF Page 33
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 32 of 52
ii. Posts Attacking, Undermining, and Attempting to Intimidate Prosecutors
Similarly, the defendant has posted false and disparaging claims regarding the Department
of Justice and prosecutors in the Special Counsel’s Office in an attempt to undermine confidence
in the justice system and prejudice the jury pool against the Government in advance of trial. In a
video posted to Truth Social, the defendant called the Special Counsel’s Office a “team of thugs.”15
15
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110980188106641474.
-832
PDF Page 34
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 33 of 52
Recently, the defendant has spread knowingly false accusations of misconduct against a
prosecutor in the Special Counsel’s Office working on the case in which the defendant was indicted
in the Southern District of Florida in June 2023, see United States v. Donald J. Trump, et al, Case
No. 9:23-cr-80101-AMC, ECF No. 30 at 1 (S.D. Fla. June 21, 2023), and connected those false
accusations to this case in the District of Columbia by calling the Court a “biased, Trump Hating
Judge,” as shown below. In his posts on this topic, the defendant repeatedly makes the knowingly
false claim that Special Counsel’s Office prosecutors went to the White House in advance of the
defendant’s June 2023 indictment for improper reasons.
-933
PDF Page 35
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 34 of 52
In fact, as the defendant well knows from the formal FBI FD-302 interview report and agent notes
that he received in discovery on June 21, 2023, in the Southern District of Florida case, on March
31, 2023, the Special Counsel’s Office prosecutor conducted a routine investigative interview of a
career military official at that official’s duty station—the White House. The defendant’s objective
in spreading a knowing lie to the contrary—including by re-posting others’ Truth Social posts
naming the prosecutor and repeating the lie 16—is an attempt to prejudice the public and the venire
in advance of trial.
With that same goal, the defendant has posted misleading claims on Truth Social to
insinuate misconduct by the Special Counsel’s Office in pursuing ordinary court-approved process
or seeking the indictment in this case. Regarding a search warrant and non-disclosure order that
the Government received from the court consistent with the law, for instance, the defendant falsely
claimed that the Special Counsel’s Office broke into his former Twitter account 17 in a “major ‘hit’
on my civil rights” and queried whether the Special Counsel directed the Select Committee to
16
On August 28, the defendant re-posted a Truth Social post doing exactly this. See
https://truthsocial.com/@marklevinshow/110969978988667723.
17
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110886100439412597.
- 10 34
PDF Page 36
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 35 of 52
“DESTROY & DELETE all evidence.” 18 And on August 2, the defendant posted a quote alleging,
without any basis, that the indictment that a federal grand jury in this case returned had been
directed by the sitting president: “‘Joe Biden directed his Attorney General to prosecute his rival.
This is not an independent Justice Department, this is not an independent special counsel. This is
being directed by the Commander-in-Chief.” 19 Through such posts, the defendant is attempting
to submit his false and inflammatory claims to the public and jury pool outside of court, because
he knows that any such claims made before the Court in the form of motions to suppress or of
vindictive prosecution will fail because they must be supported by evidence—of which there is
none.
iii. Posts Bolstering or Attacking and Attempting to Intimidate Witnesses
The defendant has also posted publicly about individuals whom he has reason to believe
will be witnesses in this trial. For instance, on August 30, the defendant posted a video attacking
the former Attorney General of the United States, a potential witness in this case, on the very
subject of his testimony. 20 Steadily since indictment, the defendant has publicly bolstered certain
prospective witnesses in this case, while attacking others, in an effort to influence the public’s and
the jury pool’s impressions of potential witnesses outside of the courtroom. Examples of such
posts are below.
18
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110860965885418709.
19
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110823008009285486.
20
See https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110980538393058556.
- 11 35
PDF Page 37
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 36 of 52
C. The Defendant’s Public Posts Regarding this Case are Reasonably Likely to
Prejudice the Jury Pool
The defendant’s relentless public posts marshaling anger and mistrust in the justice system,
the Court, and prosecutors have already influenced the public. For instance, on August 5, 2023,
an individual was arrested because she called the Court’s chambers and made racist death threats
to the Court that were tied to the Court’s role in presiding over the defendant’s case. See United
States v. Shry, Case No. 4:23-mj-1602, ECF No. 1 at 3 (Criminal Complaint) (S.D. Tex. August
11, 2023). In addition, the Special Counsel has been subject to multiple threats, and the specific
Special Counsel’s Office prosecutor that the defendant has targeted through recent, inflammatory
public posts has been subject to intimidating communications. Given the defendant’s history
described above and the nature of the threats to the Court and to the Government, it is clear that
- 12 36
PDF Page 38
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 37 of 52
the threats are prompted by the defendant’s repeated and relentless posts. To the extent that the
defendant’s public posts reach the general public, they also reach the jury pool for this trial.
In addition, if unfettered, the way that the defendant is known to use public statements to
intimidate individuals could affect potential jurors. A recent incident in this District illustrates the
potential issue. Last week, in a trial against a self-professed supporter of the defendant who
claimed to have been at the United States Capitol on January 6 because of the defendant’s tweets,
the jury sent the court a note expressing concern that the trial defendant (Fellows) might have
information about the identity of jurors. See United States v. Brandon Fellows, Case No. 21-cr83 (TNM) at ECF No. 141, Note (“We wanted to confirm that the defendent [sic] does not have
any personal information on individual jurors, since he was defending himself. Includes name,
address, etc.”). This demonstrates the need to protect potential jurors from fear of threats and
harassment that stem from the defendant’s disparaging and inflammatory public statements.
II.
The Court Should Ensure That Public Statements by the Defendant and His Agents
Do Not Prejudice These Criminal Proceedings
The defendant’s repeated, inflammatory public statements regarding the District of
Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and potential witnesses are substantially likely to materially
prejudice the jury pool, create fear among potential jurors, and result in threats or harassment to
individuals he singles out. Put simply, those involved in the criminal justice process who read and
hear the defendant’s disparaging and inflammatory messages (from court personnel, to
prosecutors, to witnesses, to potential jurors) may reasonably fear that they could be the next
targets of the defendant’s attacks. To protect the due administration of justice in these proceedings
and ensure the impartiality of the venire, the Government proposes two narrowly tailored orders
that impose modest, permissible restrictions on prejudicial extrajudicial conduct by the parties and
counsel.
- 13 37
PDF Page 39
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 38 of 52
A. The Court Should Issue an Order Pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c) That
Prohibits Certain Narrowly Defined Statements
The Court has recognized its “obligation to prevent what the Supreme Court called in
Sheppard v. Maxwell ‘a carnival atmosphere of unchecked publicity and trial by media rather than
our constitutionally established system of trial by impartial jury.’” 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 71. To
fulfill that obligation, the Court may “take such steps by rule and regulation that will protect their
processes from prejudicial outside interferences,” including by “proscrib[ing] extrajudicial
statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official which divulge[s] prejudicial matters.”
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 361 (1966). Consistent with these principles, the Court should
enter an order pursuant to this District’s Local Criminal Rules imposing limited restrictions on
certain extrajudicial public statements by the parties and attorneys in this case.
Local Criminal Rule 57.7 permits the Court, “[i]n a widely publicized or sensational
criminal case,” upon a motion or sua sponte, to “issue a special order governing such matters as
extrajudicial statements by parties, witnesses and attorneys likely to interfere with the rights of the
accused to a fair trial by an impartial jury.” LCrR 57.7(c); see also LCrR 57.7(b)(1), (3)
(prohibiting pre-trial, public statements by lawyers that might prejudice the due administration of
justice). Courts in this District have exercised their authority under Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c)
to issue orders restricting statements of counsel and parties in appropriate cases. See United States
v. Stone, No. 19-cr-18, ECF No. 36 at 3 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 2019) (ordering, inter alia, attorneys to
“refrain from making statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood
of material prejudice to this case”); United States v. Butina, No. 18-cr-218, ECF No. 31 at 2
(D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2018) (ordering “all interested participants, in the matter, including the parties,
any potential witnesses, and counsel for the parties and witnesses . . . to refrain from making
statements to the media or in public settings that pose a substantial likelihood of material prejudice
- 14 38
PDF Page 40
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 39 of 52
to this case”). Other jurisdictions are in accord. See United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415, 428
(5th Cir. 2000) (upholding district court order restricting extrajudicial statements, and reasoning
that the rationale of Gentile applies equally to attorneys and parties).
The Government seeks a narrow, well-defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial
statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case. The
Government’s proposed order specifies that such statements would include (a) statements
regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about
any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and
inflammatory, or intimidating. See Exhibit 2. The Government’s order also specifies that,
consistent with other clarifications in Local Criminal Rule 57.7, the order is not intended to
prohibit quotation or reference to public court records of the case or the defendant’s proclamations
of innocence. Id. This proposal is consistent with the permissible balance approved by the
Supreme Court in Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1074-75, and specific enough to provide adequate notice to
the parties and counsel of prohibited statements.
The defendant’s past conduct, including conduct that has taken place after and as a direct
result of the indictment in this case, amply demonstrates the need for this order. As illustrated by
the examples discussed above, the defendant’s statements reasonably could have a material impact
on the impartiality of the jury pool while simultaneously influencing witness testimony. The
defendant’s repeated posts that he cannot receive a fair trial from this Court or from a jury of his
peers in this District are substantially likely to undermine confidence in the justice system, affect
the jury pool, or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. His misleading statements
regarding the Special Counsel’s Office and its investigation are designed to do the same. And his
- 15 39
PDF Page 41
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 40 of 52
targeting of specific witnesses seeks to either bolster or impeach witnesses not before this Court
but instead in the court of public opinion before trial begins.
A supplemental order that extends some of the prohibitions that apply to defense counsel
to the defendant himself is particularly warranted. Shortly after the indictment in this case was
unsealed, the defendant’s lead counsel began a series of lengthy and detailed interviews in which
he potentially tainted the jury pool by disseminating information and opinions about the case and
a potential witness and described in detail legal defenses that he plans to mount, including defenses
that may never be raised in court or that may be rejected by the Court before ever reaching the
jury. 21 Many of these statements by lead counsel violated Local Criminal Rule 57.7(b), which
prohibits attorneys from releasing public extrajudicial statements regarding, among other things,
“the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses” and the “merits of the case or the
evidence in the case.” In the time since the Court admonished the parties and counsel at the hearing
regarding the motion for a protective order on August 11, 2023, see 8/11/23 Hr’g Tr. at 72, the
Government is unaware of lead counsel making any additional public statements of this nature.
The defendant, however, has persisted. The Court should therefore enter the order proposed by
21
See, e.g., CNN (August 1, 2023), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GW7Bixvkpc0;
NPR (August 2, 2023), https://www.npr.org/2023/08/02/1191627739/trump-charges-indictmentattorney-jan-6-probe;
CNN
(August
6,
2023),
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/08/06/sotu-lauro-full.cnn; ABC, This Week (August 6,
2023),
https://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/mike-pence-best-witnesses-trial-john-lauro102054360; NBC, Meet the Press (August 6, 2023), https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-thepress/video/august-6-john-lauro-and-rep-jamie-raskin-190118469904; CBS, Face the Nation
(August 6, 2023), https://www.cbsnews.com/video/face-the-nation-lauro-phillips-krebs/; Fox,
Fox News Sunday (August 6, 2023), https://www.foxnews.com/video/6332525513112; CBS,
Face the Nation (August 6, 2023); For the Defense with David Oscar Marcus (August 6, 2023),
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/john-lauro-for-donald-jtrump/id1536699806?i=1000623609326.
- 16 40
PDF Page 42
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 41 of 52
the Government to ensure the defendant does not undermine the integrity of these proceedings by
disseminating statements defense counsel cannot make.
B. The Court Should Issue an Order That Prohibits Contacting the Citizens of This
District to Conduct Jury Studies Without First Notifying and Receiving
Authorization from the Court
The Court has already taken steps to protect the venire related to polling of prospective
jurors related to this case. At the status hearing on August 28, 2023, after the Government raised
the issue of jury studies, and the defense suggested they may “sooner rather than later” conduct
outreach to the jury pool to gather information for a potential change of venue motion, the Court
instructed the defendant to notify the Court ex parte before conducting any polling in the District
of Columbia in connection with a potential motion to change the trial venue. See 8/18/23 Hr’g Tr.
at 59-60. In so doing, the Court noted that such polling “might affect the same jury pool you are
claiming is not fair” and might “actually affect their ability to render a fair verdict by virtue of the
kinds of questions you’re asking, because questions can be phrased in all kinds of ways.” Id.
Because of the potential prejudice that polling may cause, the Government respectfully
requests that the Court set forth a process to review efforts by either party to engage in contacts
with members of the jury venire in this District undertaken for the purpose of discussing casespecific facts, including any pretrial survey, poll, focus group, or similar study (hereinafter, “jury
study”). 22 Specifically, the Court should (1) require either party to notify the Court before the
party—or any individual or entity acting at the party’s direction or under its control—undertakes
any jury study in this District; (2) require the completion of any such jury study no later than 30
days before jury selection begins; (3) require either party to submit the proposed questions and
22
At a later date, the Government intends to file a motion regarding other issues related to
the jury, including the use of a juror questionnaire.
- 17 41
PDF Page 43
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 42 of 52
methodology ex parte for the Court’s review before undertaking any jury study; and (4) require
filing under seal of the name and address of each participant contacted in any jury study at least
two weeks before jury selection. A proposed order is attached as Exhibit 3.
Such an order is consistent with the Court’s inherent authority to protect the “integrity and
fairness” of the judicial system through preventing “comments that are likely to prejudice the jury
venire.” Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1075. Though pretrial surveys are neither inherently suspect nor
uncommon in trial litigation, see Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prods., LLC, 601 S.W.3d 704, 717
(Tex. 2020); see also Ellen Kreitzberg & Mary Procaccio-Flowers, The Law, Art & Science of
Selecting a Jury § 3:3 (2022) (noting the utility of pretrial surveys), courts nonetheless maintain
the authority to supervise and oversee their use. See United States v. Collins, 972 F.2d 1385, 1398
(5th Cir. 1992) (district court reviewed materials related to Government’s polling to determine
whether it had compromised the integrity of jury selection); Brewer v. Lennox Hearth Prod., LLC,
546 S.W.3d 866, 877 (Tex. App. 2018) (finding that pretrial surveys are “subject to review by the
presiding court in order to determine whether anything was done to compromise the integrity of
the jury selection process”), rev’d on other grounds, 601 S.W.3d 704 (Tex. 2020). If questions in
a pretrial survey are worded to advocate for a certain party’s position, or test the effectiveness of
a party’s message in addition to gathering information, they can have a potentially prejudicial
effect. See Brewer, 601 S.W.3d at 726 (“A campaign of disinformation, in whatever form,
undermines the sanctity of the judicial process and is inimical to the constitutional promise of a
fair and impartial jury trial.); cf. United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 64 n.43 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
(finding that the district court did not err in relying more on comprehensive voir dire than “a poll
taken in private by private pollsters and paid for by one side”).
- 18 42
PDF Page 44
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 43 of 52
To guard against the damage that a pretrial survey could inflict on the venire—whether
intentionally or not—this Court should exercise its inherent authority here. At least one district
court has a standing order that requires the parties to provide advance notification “[w]hen the
party decides that it will, or is likely to, commission” a pretrial mock trial, focus group, or similar
study of the jury venire. See The Honorable Ron Clark, E.D. Tex. Standing Order RC-47 (Aug.
11, 2010). An order of this type “do[es] not prohibit use of surveys as a litigation tool” but instead
“regulate[s] the practice . . . by (1) requir[ing] pretrial notice of intent to conduct such a study; (2)
requir[ing] disclosure . . . of the methodology; (3) temporally limit[ing] proximity to trial; and (4)
requir[ing] in camera submission of each participant’s name and address in advance of the pretrial conference.” Brewer, 601 S.W.3d at 726 (emphasis in original). The Government has
attached a proposed order that contains these features.
III.
Conclusion
Consistent with its obligations to guard the integrity of these proceedings and prevent
prejudice to the jury pool, while respecting the defendant’s First Amendment rights, the Court
should enter the proposed orders imposing certain narrow restrictions on the parties’ public
statements regarding this case and governing any jury studies the parties may undertake.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK SMITH
Special Counsel
By:
/s/Molly Gaston
Molly Gaston
Thomas P. Windom
Senior Assistant Special Counsels
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Room B-206
Washington, D.C. 20530
- 19 43
PDF Page 45
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 44 of 52
Exhibit 1 (Sealed)
44
PDF Page 46
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 45 of 52
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC)
ORDER
Having considered the parties’ filings, and mindful of the Court’s responsibility to protect
the fundamental right to a fair trial by impartial jurors from comments that are likely to influence
the outcome of the trial or prejudice the jury venire, see Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S.
1030, 1075 (1991), upon the Court’s finding that a narrowly tailored order governing extrajudicial
statements by the parties is the least restrictive measure to protect this process from materially
prejudicial outside interference, and pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), the Court orders as
follows:
1.
The parties in this case and their attorneys are prohibited from making or
authorizing statements to the media or in public settings, including through social media, that pose
a substantial likelihood of material prejudice to this case. Such statements include, but are not
limited to, (a) statements regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses;
and (b) disparaging and inflammatory or intimidating statements about any party, witness,
attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors. The defendant is also prohibited from causing
surrogates to make such statements on his behalf.
2.
Consistent with Local Criminal Rule 57.7, this prohibition does not preclude the
defendant or his attorneys, agents, or others acting on his behalf from (a) quoting or referring
45
PDF Page 47
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 46 of 52
without comment to public records of the court in the case; (b) announcing the scheduling or result
of any stage in the judicial process; (c) requesting assistance in obtaining evidence; or (d)
announcing without further comment that the defendant denies the charges.
HON. TANYA S. CHUTKAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-246
PDF Page 48
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 47 of 52
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CRIMINAL NO. 23-cr-257 (TSC)
ORDER
Before the Court are the parties’ filings regarding pretrial surveys. Participation in a
pretrial survey, poll, or similar study (“jury study”) increases the risk that otherwise qualified
members of the jury pool will be disqualified from jury service either through participation in the
jury study or through other extrajudicial knowledge concerning the facts of the case or the law to
be applied. Mindful of the Court’s responsibility to “take such steps by rule and regulation that
will protect” pretrial and trial proceedings “from prejudicial outside interferences,” see Sheppard
v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363 (1966), the Court orders as follows:
1.
Either party must notify the Court ex parte before the party or any individual or
entity acting at the party’s direction or under the party’s control undertakes any jury study in the
District of Columbia.
2.
Any such jury study must be completed 30 days before the start of jury selection.
The notification must include (a) a brief description of the intended methodology; (b) all questions
that will be asked in the pretrial survey, poll, or study; and (c) the expected number of participants.
3.
The party may not begin the jury study until it is approved by the Court, and no
party may use the results of any jury study unless it has been approved in advance by the Court.
In order to safeguard the sanctity of the judicial system and ensure the constitutional promise of a
47
PDF Page 49
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 48 of 52
fair and impartial jury, the Court may require the party to edit or remove portions of the intended
jury study.
4.
The party or parties who commission the jury study must retain the name and
address of each participant contacted. The party or parties who commissioned the survey, poll, or
study shall supply the names of all participants to the Court at least two weeks prior to jury
selection.
HON. TANYA S. CHUTKAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-248
PDF Page 50
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 49 of 52
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Case No. 1:23-cr-257-TSC
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant.
________________________________/
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PRETRIAL MOTIONS
After setting trial in this matter for March 4, 2024, the Court indicated that it would create
an initial pretrial schedule without argument, but that “[i]f the parties have conflicts or other issues
with the schedule other than the trial date, [a party] may file a motion to alter those dates after
consulting with opposing counsel regarding alternative dates.” Doc. 38 at 56.
This process is typically uncontroversial, with the government routinely agreeing to
reasonable extensions of pretrial deadlines, especially where—as here—a requested extension
would have no impact on the trial setting. With good reason, as the government’s “interest . . . in
a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” Berger v.
United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).
Not so here. Aware that its case legally insufficient and subject to dismissal, the prosecution
casts the mandates of Berger aside, cynically hoping that it can obtain a conviction by denying
President Trump his constitutional right to present a defense, including through motions addressing
fatal deficiencies in the indictment. The Court should reject these improper, irregular, and
unconstitutional tactics, and grant the Requested Extension, consistent with ordinary order.
1
49
PDF Page 51
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 50 of 52
ARGUMENT
Acting as though this were a mine-run case proceeding along a well-worn road, the
prosecution claims President Trump should need no more than two months to submit pretrial
motions. The prosecution knows better. This case is the first of its kind in American history. Many,
if not most, of President Trump’s motions address wholly unique areas of the law that have never
been litigated. To lodge these motions properly, counsel requires time to fully research and develop
each issue and apprise the court of relevant authorities.
For this exact reason, Fed. R. Crim P. 12(c)(1) allows liberal extensions of the pretrial
motion deadline, which does not exist to limit a defendant’s right to present motions, but rather to
facilitate decisions in advance of trial—an objective the Requested Extension fully achieves by
placing the deadline nearly three months before jury selection.
Unable to dispute this, the prosecution grasps at straws, claiming the Requested Extension
would result “in a cascade of conflicts” that would somehow “delay the trial until [President
Trump’s] preferred 2026 trial date.” Doc. 66 at 7. In support, the prosecution argues that pretrial
motions must be submitted by the current deadline, or else there will not be enough time to address
other pretrial issues before jury selection begins. Id.
Yet the prosecution’s own original scheduling proposal contemplated far less time between
the pretrial motion deadline and jury selection—a total of just 56 days. Doc. 23 at 2. Amazingly,
the timeline the government once championed as providing ample time for “the Court and parties
to fully litigate any pre-trial legal issues,” id. at 1, is now “unworkable,” even with an additional
month. Doc. 66 at 8. The reason for this sudden reversal is plain—the prosecution’s only interest
in this case is not justice, but undermining its administration’s primary political opponent, and the
leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election. To do so, it is more than willing to contradict
2
50
PDF Page 52
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 51 of 52
itself, “strike foul” blows, and employ “improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful
conviction.” Berger, 295 U.S. at 88.
In truth, although President Trump vehemently objects to the current trial setting, the
Requested Extension will have no effect on it, and the notion that a 60-day extension of a motion
deadline would “delay the trial until . . . 2026,” Doc. 66 at 7, is absurd on its face. Indeed, if the
Court grants the Requested Extension, nearly nothing else in this case will be affected. The new
deadline would still be before any other briefing deadlines in this case, including 19 days before
the current deadline for motions in limine and suppression motions, and over a month before
proposed jury instructions are due. 1 Rather than “vitiate the organizational principles underpinning
the Court’s selection of interim dates,” Doc. 66 at 7, the Requested Extension would allow counsel
the time necessary to ensure that all questions are fully researched, examined, and briefed.
As the Court is aware, defense counsel has devoted significant time and effort preparing
comprehensive filings addressing numerous weighty issues of first impression that go to the core
of our system of government and our most deeply held Constitutional rights, including in our
extensive motion to dismiss filed today. President Trump intends to do the same with his remaining
The prosecution relatedly argues that the Requested Extension should be denied because “pretrial
motions would not even be ripe for the Court to consider until January 5, 2024—well after the
deadlines for the parties to submit exhibits and in limine motions.” Doc. 66 at 7. This, however,
assumes: (1) pretrial motions must be decided before motions in limine may be filed, which is not
the case, (2) that President Trump would file all his pretrial motions on the Requested Extension
date, which is also incorrect, as our multiple, already-filed pretrial motions demonstrate, (3) that
the prosecution could not take its own advice and “at that time move under Rule 12(c) for relief
from the Pretrial Order,” Doc. 66 at 5, or (4) that the prosecution could not request expedited
consideration of any motions that it believes might affect its own future motions, especially given
the numerous motions for which the Court has already set expedited response and reply schedules,
including this motion. Finally, to the extent the Court believes the sequencing of other pretrial
events should be adjusted to account for a December 8 motion deadline, it can easily do so without
affecting the current trial setting.
1
3
51
PDF Page 53
Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 107 Filed 10/18/23 Page 52 of 52
motions, and, with the Requested Extension, will continue to file on a rolling basis, consistent with
orderly motion practice in a complex case.
The Requested Extension is a reasonable and typical accommodation that will enable
President Trump to review larger segments of the provided discovery and fully address the
complex questions raised by the unique circumstances of this case. It will not affect any other
deadlines or prejudice any party, and the case will continue to trial on schedule. Accordingly,
President Trump respectfully requests the Court overrule the prosecution’s objections and grant
the Requested Extension.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, as well as those set forth in the underlying Motion, President
Trump respectfully requests that the Court grant the Requested Extension and allow the parties
until December 8, 2023, to file pretrial motions.
Dated: October 5, 2023
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Blanche, Esq. (PHV)
toddblanche@blanchelaw.com
BLANCHE LAW
99 Wall St., Suite 4460
New York, NY 10005
(212) 716-1250
/s/John F. Lauro
John F. Lauro, Esq.
D.C. Bar No. 392830
jlauro@laurosinger.com
Gregory M. Singer, Esq. (PHV)
gsinger@laurosinger.com
Filzah I. Pavalon, Esq. (PHV)
fpavalon@laurosinger.com
LAURO & SINGER
400 N. Tampa St., 15th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 222-8990
Counsel for President Trump
4
52
Back to 
