REPLY TO RESPONSE to Motion by Waltine Nauta as to Donald J. Trump, Waltine Nauta, Carlos De Oliveira re [386] MOTION for Extension of Time of Reply Deadlines (Dadan, Sasha)
Page 1 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 1 of
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 23-80101-CR-CANNON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
WALTINE NAUTA, and
CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA,
Defendants.
/
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
Earlier today Defendants President Donald J. Trump as well as Messrs. Nauta and De
Oliveira submitted what should have been construed as a straightforward request for a brief
extension of time within which to submit reply memoranda in support of numerous motions to
dismiss, Mot. (March 11, 2024) (ECF No. 387), in light of the acknowledgement by the Special
Counsel’s Office (“SCO”) that, “we are well aware everybody here is working very hard.” Hr’g
Tr. at 22:23-24 (March 1, 2024). This request hardly prejudices anyone given that the majority of
this briefing has yet to be publicly docketed. Yet in their opposition to the same, the SCO goes out
of its way to publicly cast the request as frivolous. Given the gravity of the prosecution it pursues,
such unnecessary allegations are not just disingenuous, but cavalier.
By way of background, on November 10, 2023, this Court Ordered that defendants submit
pretrial motions pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on or before
February 22, 2024. Order (Nov. 10, 2023) (ECF No. 215). Following protracted briefing on the
necessity of sealing references to certain discovery materials, see Order at 1 n.1 (Feb. 27, 2024) Page 2 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 2 of
(ECF No. 338) (delineating the, “various sealing/redacting issues before the Court”), the Court
Ordered that the defendants submit their pretrial motions in camera to the extent any motions,
“discuss[] or attach[] discovery materials.” Paperless Order (Feb. 20, 2024) (ECF No. 320).
Accordingly, on February 22, 2024, Mr. Nauta submitted in camera to the Court and the Special
Counsel’s Office (“SCO”) a Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Selective and
Vindictive Prosecution and a Motion to Suppress Evidence and for Return of Property and Request
for an Evidentiary Hearing and Franks Hearing. See Nauta Notice of Pretrial Motions and Hearing
Request (March 1, 2024) (ECF No. 359). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c) of the Local Rules for the
Southern District of Florida and this Court’s March 5, 2024, Paperless Order (ECF No. 365),
confirming that the SCO’s opposing memoranda were also to be submitted in camera, the SCO
submitted its oppositions to these motions on March 7, 2024. See Notice (March 7, 2024) (ECF
No. 385). Also pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c) and the Court’s March 4, 2024 Paperless Order Mr.
Nauta’s reply memoranda in support of the motions would be due March 14, 2024.
In its opposition, the SCO writes, “[Mr.] Nauta fails to explain how any questions about
grand jury practice in the District of Columbia could affect his reply briefly and why he waited
until know to seek this information.” Opp. at 2 (March 11, 2024) (ECF No. 388). Yet again, the
SCO is well aware of the outstanding discovery issues concerning, specifically, Mr. Nauta’s
Motion to Dismiss for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution and Motion to Suppress Evidence and
for Return of Property and Request for an Evidentiary Haring and Franks Hearing.
With respect to the Motion to Suppress Evidence and for Return of Property and Request
for an Evidentiary Hearing and Franks Hearing, as defense counsel advised the Court on March 1,
2024, only a day prior did defense counsel learn of the existence of a search warrant the SCO
sought and obtained for an email account utilized by Mr. Nauta. The SCO subsequently produced Page 3 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 3 of
its warrant application for this email account on March 4, 2024. See Supp. Response Standing
Discovery Order (Mar. 4, 2024) (ECF No. 362). In the interim, defense counsel learned that
although the return for the warrant had been produced to all defense counsel during the course of
discovery, the unfiltered and unscoped copy of the email account obtained by the SCO was
provided only to Mr. Nauta’s counsel and the password to access the same was incorrect. Only
today, March 11, 2024, did defense counsel for Mr. Nauta receive the unfiltered unscoped copy of
the records obtained (and reviewed) by the SCO’s Filter Team as part of its investigation in this
matter. A brief extension of time to review what materials were reviewed by the SCO’s Filter
Team is not unwarranted given the circumstances.
With respect to the Motion to Dismiss for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution, Mr. Nauta
submits that he was selectively and/or vindictively prosecuted only because of his refusal to
cooperate with the SCO in its investigation. Although the merits of this argument necessarily refer
to discovery material and/or sealed filings, see, e.g., ECF Nos. 100, 101, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119,
which the Court is diligently working to resolve following extensive briefing, some the allegations
have been publicly reported. See Sadie Gurman and Alex Leary, Trump Aide, Granted Immunity,
Set to Testify at Grand Jury Probing Mar-a-Lago Documents, The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 2,
2022); 1 Hugo Lowell, Lawyer for Trump Valet in Mar-a-Lago Documents Case Alleges
Misconduct, The Guardian (June 8, 2023); 2 Kyle Cheney, Judge Scolds Jack Smith’s Team for
Causing Delay in Unrelated Jan. 6 Verdict, Politico (July 20, 2023).
Available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-aide-granted-immunity-set-to-testify-at-grand-jury-probing-mara-lago-documents-116674
Available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/08/lawyer-trump-valet-nauta-mar-a-lago-classifieddocuments-misconduct-alleg
Available at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/20/trump-grand-jury-witness-executive-privilege-00107442. Page 4 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 4 of
Accordingly, and in preparation for the submission of their motions to dismiss, it came to
the attention of defense counsel that the SCO had not provided certain materials evidencing, Mr.
Nauta alleges, prosecutorial misconduct. Defense counsel requested these materials on January
19, 2024, and some of the materials sought were provided in a production on January 26, 2024.
See Supp. Response Standing Discovery Order (Jan. 26, 2024) (ECF No. 273). In the meantime,
defense counsel requested an extension of time within which to submit their motions to dismiss
while outstanding discovery issues were resolved, Mot. (Feb. 6, 2024) (ECF 285), which the SCO
opposed (Feb. 8, 2024) (ECF No. 292), and the Court denied, while acknowledging supplemental
briefing may be necessary. Paperless Order (Feb. 15, 2024) (ECF No. 314). (“However, to the
extent the Court's resolution of the pending Motions to Compel Discovery 262 yields a specified
need of any party to supplement previously filed pre-trial motions and/or to file evidentiary
motions that could not reasonably have been filed by February 22, 2024, the Court will consider
such arguments as appropriate”). Although defense counsel reiterated their request for additional
grand jury materials, it was not until March 8, 2024, that the SCO confirmed that it would not
provide the additional materials requested by defense counsel (specifically a list of the proceedings
to have occurred before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia).
Of note, the SCO has now also confirmed that it failed to comply with Rule 6(e) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in this case. Specifically, Rule 6(e)(3)(G) provides that a
when a petition to disclose grand jury materials, “arises out of a judicial proceeding in another
district, the petitioned court must transfer the petition to the other court unless the petitioned court
can reasonably determine whether disclosure is proper.” Fed. R. Cr. P. 6(e)(3)(G) (emphasis
added). Here, the SCO concedes no request to transfer the grand jury proceedings occurring in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia was made prior to defense counsel Page 5 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 5 of
flagging this deficiency for the SCO at the Court’s March 1, 2024, scheduling hearing. Although
the SCO now represents that it is, “in the process” of complying with Rule 6(e)(3)(G), it remains
unclear what proceedings the SCO seeks to transfer to this Court. And again, when asked, the
SCO refused to provide defense counsel with a list of the proceedings that occurred in the District
of Columbia as part of the SCO’s investigations there.
The SCO’s failure to comply with Rule 6(e) is also relevant to former President Trump’s
Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Prosecutorial Misconduct and Due Process Violations
(“Prosecutorial Misconduct”), as well as the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on the
Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (Feb. 22, 2024) (ECF No. 326)
(“Unconstitutional Special Counsel Appointment”). Specifically, defense counsel has recently
learned that the Department of Justice publishes a Federal Grand Jury Manual instructing on best
practices for handling investigations before grand juries. The Federal Grand Jury Manual is
referenced, by way of example, in Section 9-11.254 of the Justice Manual, which notes that the
Justice Manual “supplements [the procedures] described in the Department’s Federal Grand Jury
Practice Manual.” Justice Manual § 9-11.254 (emphasis added). 4 Although the Federal Grand
Jury Manual is confidential, and it instructs prosecutors who receive it to maintain its
confidentiality, the 1983 version of the manual is available online. See U.S. Dep’t Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Federal Grand Jury Manual
(1983). 5 Relevant here, more than forty (40) years ago, the following recommended best practice
instructed prosecutors on the transfer of an investigation from one grand jury to another:
Usually, all documents and testimony before the first grand jury should be
presented to the new grand jury. This is generally the rule and should be
followed whenever feasible. There is room for some discretion, however,
Available at https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.254.
Available at https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/federal-grand-jury-practice-manual (last visited
Mar. 11, 2024). Page 6 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 6 of
in situations where numerous witnesses were called before the first grand
jury in a particular investigation, and only a small percentage were actually
necessary for the proposed indictment. However, if the AUSA believes that
re-presenting all of the live testimony is not necessary, or that a summary of
the evidence would be proper, he/she should first discuss the matter with
his/her supervisor. The use of summaries of prior testimony can bias a
grand jury and void the indictment.
Id. at 16-17, I.F.1. Although defense counsel requested a copy of the current version of the manual,
the SCO declined to provide the same. The Federal Grand Jury Manual is highly relevant to the Court’s consideration of both the
Prosecutorial Misconduct and Unconstitutional Special Counsel Appointment Motions. With
respect to the former, the Department’s Special Counsel regulations require that the SCO, “comply
with the rules, regulations, procedures and practices and policies of the Department of Justice.”
C.F.R. § 600.7(a). Evidence of deliberate indifference to, let alone disregard of, the Federal Grand
Jury Manual unequivocally bears upon the Court’s determination as to whether the SCO engaged
in prosecutorial misconduct when it conducted its investigation in the District of Columbia only
to transfer it to the Southern District of Florida (and then chose to ignore the applicable Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure following such a transfer). To make that assessment, the Court must
first know what the Department’s current policy is with respect to grand jury procedures.
With respect to the Unconstitutional Special Counsel Appointment Motion, the Federal
Grand Jury Manual is relevant insofar as it demonstrates Special Counsel Jack Smith’s conduct as
a superior officer whose appointment is required by the President of the United States and subject
to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1, § 3. See also Unconstitutional
Special Counsel Appointment Motion at 2 (Feb. 22, 2024) (ECF No. 326). Specifically, there is
Counsel for Mr. Nauta was recently provided pertinent excerpts of the 2023 Federal Grand Jury Manual through
his representation in an unrelated matter. See Mot. Dismiss, United States v. Schulman, No. 20-cr-434 (D. Md. Feb.
2, 2024). Page 7 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 7 of
no evidence that anyone within the Department of Justice was consulted prior to the transfer of the
investigation giving rise to this matter to the Southern District of Florida. Given the highly unusual
nature of the transfer (including the SCO’s failure to comply with the applicable Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure following such a transfer), it stands to reason that any “inferior officer” would
have sought approval of the same. Indeed, the 1983 version of the Federal Grand Jury Manual
advises that, “if the AUSA believes that re-presenting all of the live testimony is not necessary, or
that a summary of the evidence would be proper, he/she should first discuss the matter with his/her
supervisor.”
***
The gravity of this prosecution can not be understated. As all the stakeholders to this
litigation wrestle with both novel and profound legal issues of utmost importance, it should be
incumbent upon all to assure that the pursuit of justice remains paramount. A brief extension of
the time within which reply memoranda in support of the voluminous motions to dismiss
prepared in this action are filed (or merely submitted to the Court) does not contravene that goal.
[SIGNATURE BLOCK NEXT PAGE] Page 8 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 8 of
Dated: March 11,
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Stanley E. Woodward, Jr.
Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. (pro hac vice)
Brand Woodward Law, LP
400 Fifth Street NW, Suite Washington, DC 202.996.7447 (telephone)
202.996.0113 (facsimile)
stanley@brandwoodwardlaw.com
s/ Sasha Dadan
Sasha Dadan (Fla. Bar No. 109069)
Dadan Law Firm, PLLC
201 S. 2nd Street, Suite Fort Pierce, Florida 772.579.2771 (telephone)
772.264.5766 (facsimile)
sasha@dadanlawfirm.com
Counsel for Defendant Waltine Nauta Page 9 Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 9 of
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 11, 2024, I electronically submitted the foregoing, via
CM/ECF, to counsel of record.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Sasha Dadan
Sasha Dadan (Fla. Bar No. 109069)
Dadan Law Firm, PLLC
201 S. 2nd Street, Suite Fort Pierce, Florida 772.579.2771 (telephone)
772.264.5766 (facsimile)
sasha@dadanlawfirm.com
Counsel for Defendant Waltine Nauta
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 1 of 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION
CASE NO. 23-80101-CR-CANNON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
WALTINE NAUTA, and
CARLOS DE OLIVEIRA,
Defendants.
/
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
Earlier today Defendants President Donald J. Trump as well as Messrs. Nauta and De
Oliveira submitted what should have been construed as a straightforward request for a brief
extension of time within which to submit reply memoranda in support of numerous motions to
dismiss, Mot. (March 11, 2024) (ECF No. 387), in light of the acknowledgement by the Special
Counsel’s Office (“SCO”) that, “we are well aware everybody here is working very hard.” Hr’g
Tr. at 22:23-24 (March 1, 2024). This request hardly prejudices anyone given that the majority of
this briefing has yet to be publicly docketed. Yet in their opposition to the same, the SCO goes out
of its way to publicly cast the request as frivolous. Given the gravity of the prosecution it pursues,
such unnecessary allegations are not just disingenuous, but cavalier.
By way of background, on November 10, 2023, this Court Ordered that defendants submit
pretrial motions pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on or before
February 22, 2024. Order (Nov. 10, 2023) (ECF No. 215). Following protracted briefing on the
necessity of sealing references to certain discovery materials, see Order at 1 n.1 (Feb. 27, 2024)
1
PDF Page 3
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 2 of 9
(ECF No. 338) (delineating the, “various sealing/redacting issues before the Court”), the Court
Ordered that the defendants submit their pretrial motions in camera to the extent any motions,
“discuss[] or attach[] discovery materials.” Paperless Order (Feb. 20, 2024) (ECF No. 320).
Accordingly, on February 22, 2024, Mr. Nauta submitted in camera to the Court and the Special
Counsel’s Office (“SCO”) a Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Selective and
Vindictive Prosecution and a Motion to Suppress Evidence and for Return of Property and Request
for an Evidentiary Hearing and Franks Hearing. See Nauta Notice of Pretrial Motions and Hearing
Request (March 1, 2024) (ECF No. 359). Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c) of the Local Rules for the
Southern District of Florida and this Court’s March 5, 2024, Paperless Order (ECF No. 365),
confirming that the SCO’s opposing memoranda were also to be submitted in camera, the SCO
submitted its oppositions to these motions on March 7, 2024. See Notice (March 7, 2024) (ECF
No. 385). Also pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c) and the Court’s March 4, 2024 Paperless Order Mr.
Nauta’s reply memoranda in support of the motions would be due March 14, 2024.
In its opposition, the SCO writes, “[Mr.] Nauta fails to explain how any questions about
grand jury practice in the District of Columbia could affect his reply briefly and why he waited
until know to seek this information.” Opp. at 2 (March 11, 2024) (ECF No. 388). Yet again, the
SCO is well aware of the outstanding discovery issues concerning, specifically, Mr. Nauta’s
Motion to Dismiss for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution and Motion to Suppress Evidence and
for Return of Property and Request for an Evidentiary Haring and Franks Hearing.
With respect to the Motion to Suppress Evidence and for Return of Property and Request
for an Evidentiary Hearing and Franks Hearing, as defense counsel advised the Court on March 1,
2024, only a day prior did defense counsel learn of the existence of a search warrant the SCO
sought and obtained for an email account utilized by Mr. Nauta. The SCO subsequently produced
2
PDF Page 4
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 3 of 9
its warrant application for this email account on March 4, 2024. See Supp. Response Standing
Discovery Order (Mar. 4, 2024) (ECF No. 362). In the interim, defense counsel learned that
although the return for the warrant had been produced to all defense counsel during the course of
discovery, the unfiltered and unscoped copy of the email account obtained by the SCO was
provided only to Mr. Nauta’s counsel and the password to access the same was incorrect. Only
today, March 11, 2024, did defense counsel for Mr. Nauta receive the unfiltered unscoped copy of
the records obtained (and reviewed) by the SCO’s Filter Team as part of its investigation in this
matter. A brief extension of time to review what materials were reviewed by the SCO’s Filter
Team is not unwarranted given the circumstances.
With respect to the Motion to Dismiss for Selective and Vindictive Prosecution, Mr. Nauta
submits that he was selectively and/or vindictively prosecuted only because of his refusal to
cooperate with the SCO in its investigation. Although the merits of this argument necessarily refer
to discovery material and/or sealed filings, see, e.g., ECF Nos. 100, 101, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119,
which the Court is diligently working to resolve following extensive briefing, some the allegations
have been publicly reported. See Sadie Gurman and Alex Leary, Trump Aide, Granted Immunity,
Set to Testify at Grand Jury Probing Mar-a-Lago Documents, The Wall Street Journal (Nov. 2,
2022); 1 Hugo Lowell, Lawyer for Trump Valet in Mar-a-Lago Documents Case Alleges
Misconduct, The Guardian (June 8, 2023); 2 Kyle Cheney, Judge Scolds Jack Smith’s Team for
Causing Delay in Unrelated Jan. 6 Verdict, Politico (July 20, 2023). 3
1
Available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-aide-granted-immunity-set-to-testify-at-grand-jury-probing-mara-lago-documents-11667429590.
2
Available at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/08/lawyer-trump-valet-nauta-mar-a-lago-classifieddocuments-misconduct-allegation.
3
Available at https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/20/trump-grand-jury-witness-executive-privilege-00107442.
3
PDF Page 5
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 4 of 9
Accordingly, and in preparation for the submission of their motions to dismiss, it came to
the attention of defense counsel that the SCO had not provided certain materials evidencing, Mr.
Nauta alleges, prosecutorial misconduct. Defense counsel requested these materials on January
19, 2024, and some of the materials sought were provided in a production on January 26, 2024.
See Supp. Response Standing Discovery Order (Jan. 26, 2024) (ECF No. 273). In the meantime,
defense counsel requested an extension of time within which to submit their motions to dismiss
while outstanding discovery issues were resolved, Mot. (Feb. 6, 2024) (ECF 285), which the SCO
opposed (Feb. 8, 2024) (ECF No. 292), and the Court denied, while acknowledging supplemental
briefing may be necessary. Paperless Order (Feb. 15, 2024) (ECF No. 314). (“However, to the
extent the Court's resolution of the pending Motions to Compel Discovery 262 yields a specified
need of any party to supplement previously filed pre-trial motions and/or to file evidentiary
motions that could not reasonably have been filed by February 22, 2024, the Court will consider
such arguments as appropriate”). Although defense counsel reiterated their request for additional
grand jury materials, it was not until March 8, 2024, that the SCO confirmed that it would not
provide the additional materials requested by defense counsel (specifically a list of the proceedings
to have occurred before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia).
Of note, the SCO has now also confirmed that it failed to comply with Rule 6(e) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in this case. Specifically, Rule 6(e)(3)(G) provides that a
when a petition to disclose grand jury materials, “arises out of a judicial proceeding in another
district, the petitioned court must transfer the petition to the other court unless the petitioned court
can reasonably determine whether disclosure is proper.” Fed. R. Cr. P. 6(e)(3)(G) (emphasis
added). Here, the SCO concedes no request to transfer the grand jury proceedings occurring in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia was made prior to defense counsel
4
PDF Page 6
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 5 of 9
flagging this deficiency for the SCO at the Court’s March 1, 2024, scheduling hearing. Although
the SCO now represents that it is, “in the process” of complying with Rule 6(e)(3)(G), it remains
unclear what proceedings the SCO seeks to transfer to this Court. And again, when asked, the
SCO refused to provide defense counsel with a list of the proceedings that occurred in the District
of Columbia as part of the SCO’s investigations there.
The SCO’s failure to comply with Rule 6(e) is also relevant to former President Trump’s
Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Prosecutorial Misconduct and Due Process Violations
(“Prosecutorial Misconduct”), as well as the Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on the
Unlawful Appointment and Funding of Special Counsel Jack Smith (Feb. 22, 2024) (ECF No. 326)
(“Unconstitutional Special Counsel Appointment”). Specifically, defense counsel has recently
learned that the Department of Justice publishes a Federal Grand Jury Manual instructing on best
practices for handling investigations before grand juries. The Federal Grand Jury Manual is
referenced, by way of example, in Section 9-11.254 of the Justice Manual, which notes that the
Justice Manual “supplements [the procedures] described in the Department’s Federal Grand Jury
Practice Manual.” Justice Manual § 9-11.254 (emphasis added). 4 Although the Federal Grand
Jury Manual is confidential, and it instructs prosecutors who receive it to maintain its
confidentiality, the 1983 version of the manual is available online. See U.S. Dep’t Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Federal Grand Jury Manual
(1983). 5 Relevant here, more than forty (40) years ago, the following recommended best practice
instructed prosecutors on the transfer of an investigation from one grand jury to another:
Usually, all documents and testimony before the first grand jury should be
presented to the new grand jury. This is generally the rule and should be
followed whenever feasible. There is room for some discretion, however,
Available at https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.254.
Available at https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/federal-grand-jury-practice-manual (last visited
Mar. 11, 2024).
4
5
5
PDF Page 7
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 6 of 9
in situations where numerous witnesses were called before the first grand
jury in a particular investigation, and only a small percentage were actually
necessary for the proposed indictment. However, if the AUSA believes that
re-presenting all of the live testimony is not necessary, or that a summary of
the evidence would be proper, he/she should first discuss the matter with
his/her supervisor. The use of summaries of prior testimony can bias a
grand jury and void the indictment.
Id. at 16-17, I.F.1. Although defense counsel requested a copy of the current version of the manual,
the SCO declined to provide the same. 6
The Federal Grand Jury Manual is highly relevant to the Court’s consideration of both the
Prosecutorial Misconduct and Unconstitutional Special Counsel Appointment Motions. With
respect to the former, the Department’s Special Counsel regulations require that the SCO, “comply
with the rules, regulations, procedures and practices and policies of the Department of Justice.”
C.F.R. § 600.7(a). Evidence of deliberate indifference to, let alone disregard of, the Federal Grand
Jury Manual unequivocally bears upon the Court’s determination as to whether the SCO engaged
in prosecutorial misconduct when it conducted its investigation in the District of Columbia only
to transfer it to the Southern District of Florida (and then chose to ignore the applicable Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure following such a transfer). To make that assessment, the Court must
first know what the Department’s current policy is with respect to grand jury procedures.
With respect to the Unconstitutional Special Counsel Appointment Motion, the Federal
Grand Jury Manual is relevant insofar as it demonstrates Special Counsel Jack Smith’s conduct as
a superior officer whose appointment is required by the President of the United States and subject
to confirmation by the U.S. Senate. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 1, § 3. See also Unconstitutional
Special Counsel Appointment Motion at 2 (Feb. 22, 2024) (ECF No. 326). Specifically, there is
Counsel for Mr. Nauta was recently provided pertinent excerpts of the 2023 Federal Grand Jury Manual through
his representation in an unrelated matter. See Mot. Dismiss, United States v. Schulman, No. 20-cr-434 (D. Md. Feb.
2, 2024).
6
6
PDF Page 8
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 7 of 9
no evidence that anyone within the Department of Justice was consulted prior to the transfer of the
investigation giving rise to this matter to the Southern District of Florida. Given the highly unusual
nature of the transfer (including the SCO’s failure to comply with the applicable Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure following such a transfer), it stands to reason that any “inferior officer” would
have sought approval of the same. Indeed, the 1983 version of the Federal Grand Jury Manual
advises that, “if the AUSA believes that re-presenting all of the live testimony is not necessary, or
that a summary of the evidence would be proper, he/she should first discuss the matter with his/her
supervisor.”
***
The gravity of this prosecution can not be understated. As all the stakeholders to this
litigation wrestle with both novel and profound legal issues of utmost importance, it should be
incumbent upon all to assure that the pursuit of justice remains paramount. A brief extension of
the time within which reply memoranda in support of the voluminous motions to dismiss
prepared in this action are filed (or merely submitted to the Court) does not contravene that goal.
[SIGNATURE BLOCK NEXT PAGE]
7
PDF Page 9
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 8 of 9
Dated: March 11, 2024
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Stanley E. Woodward, Jr.
Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. (pro hac vice)
Brand Woodward Law, LP
400 Fifth Street NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20001
202.996.7447 (telephone)
202.996.0113 (facsimile)
stanley@brandwoodwardlaw.com
s/ Sasha Dadan
Sasha Dadan (Fla. Bar No. 109069)
Dadan Law Firm, PLLC
201 S. 2nd Street, Suite 202
Fort Pierce, Florida 34950
772.579.2771 (telephone)
772.264.5766 (facsimile)
sasha@dadanlawfirm.com
Counsel for Defendant Waltine Nauta
8
PDF Page 10
Case 9:23-cr-80101-AMC Document 389 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/11/2024 Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on March 11, 2024, I electronically submitted the foregoing, via
CM/ECF, to counsel of record.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Sasha Dadan
Sasha Dadan (Fla. Bar No. 109069)
Dadan Law Firm, PLLC
201 S. 2nd Street, Suite 202
Fort Pierce, Florida 34950
772.579.2771 (telephone)
772.264.5766 (facsimile)
sasha@dadanlawfirm.com
Counsel for Defendant Waltine Nauta
Back to 
