DOJ’s fresh argument at Garcia hearings draws judge’s rebuke in Trump case.
Attorney’s Argument Causes Frustration in Garcia Hearings
During the Garcia hearings on Thursday, Attorney David Harbach from the special counsel’s office presented a new argument that drew the judge’s ire. The judge criticized Harbach for wasting the court’s time by not filing the arguments and case citations that the government had already submitted.
The hearings involved Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos De Oliveira and butler Waltine Nauta, who were charged alongside former President Donald Trump for mishandling classified documents. The government argued that their attorneys had conflicts of interest and could not properly represent them. The purpose of the Garcia hearings is to address any potential conflicts of interest and their consequences. The hearings for De Oliveira and Nauta were held back-to-back.
Harbach argued that there was an ethical issue with the defendants’ legal counsel. He claimed that they should not be able to question the credibility and character of their former clients on the witness stand. However, the judge became frustrated with Harbach’s roundabout arguments, and Nauta’s hearing was ultimately postponed.
Carlos De Oliveira
De Oliveira is represented by John Irving and local attorney Larry Murrell.
The prosecution argued that Irving had previously represented three potential witnesses, referred to as Trump Employee 3, Witness 1, and Witness 2. Although Irving no longer represents them, attorney-client privilege would still apply, preventing him from using confidential information about his former clients. Irving stated that he had stopped representing the three clients on Aug. 30 and that there would be no confidentiality issues in the case.
Harbach cast doubt on Irving’s claim, stating, “we don’t know what we don’t know.”
Judge Aileen Cannon repeatedly asked De Oliveira if he understood the arguments and the potential impact of his attorney’s representation. She questioned whether his lawyer would vigorously defend him. De Oliveira, with a thick Portuguese accent, affirmed his understanding each time.
When Harbach pointed out that Irving would not be able to question the character or credibility of his former clients during cross-examinations, his argument faced opposition. He stumbled over his words while presenting the new argument, which was shut down by the defense.
Irving made it clear that he did not agree with the special counsel’s proposed “ethical prohibitions.” He argued that he should be allowed to discuss any witness with the jury.
Irving also mentioned that De Oliveira’s local counsel, Murrell, could cross-examine the three witnesses if necessary, and De Oliveira accepted this arrangement.
After explaining to De Oliveira that accepting this arrangement would weaken his attorney-conflict arguments for any future appeals, De Oliveira chose to keep his lawyer.
Waltine Nauta
Nauta is represented by Stanley Woodward, who previously represented Trump Employee 4, a key witness for the government.
Woodward’s law firm still represents Witness 1 and Witness 2, although Harbach stated during Nauta’s hearing that they no longer planned to call Witness 2 as a witness.
During the second Garcia hearing, Harbach made a new argument, claiming that Woodward would not be able to challenge a witness’s credibility and character in defense of his client. The defense immediately seized upon this argument, causing a delay in the proceedings.
Woodward refused to waive his right to question any witness’s character or credibility. He provided a hypothetical example of a witness having a stroke before testifying, questioning whether he would be prohibited from discussing their medical condition and credibility if the court imposed such a restriction.
Woodward argued that assuming he couldn’t properly cross-examine witnesses to defend his clients based on hypothetical scenarios was incorrect.
Judge Cannon did not support Harbach’s argument regarding loyalty and confidentiality. She criticized him for citing three cases from outside the 11th Circuit that couldn’t be used as proper parallels. However, she noted that Nauta should be aware of this. The judge expressed frustration and stated that it wasn’t clear whether Harbach was asking the court to prohibit attorneys from questioning former or current clients.
The three cases mentioned by the government, United States v. Yannotti, United States v. Spataro, and United States v. Rahman, were all prosecuted in New York.
Woodward requested more time, stating that he had only heard this argument for the first time on Thursday and couldn’t properly advise Nauta on his 6th Amendment rights, which were meant to be addressed during the Garcia hearing.
No new hearing date has been scheduled.
What issues were raised regarding the ethical prohibitions on questioning Witness 3, and how did Stanton and other attorneys respond to them
Nauta’s hearing was postponed due to the frustration caused by Harbach’s argument. Nauta is represented by attorney Monica Stanton from the public defender’s office. The government argued that Stanton had a potential conflict of interest because she had previously represented a witness in the case, Witness 3. Stanton stated that she no longer represented Witness 3 and that there would be no issues of confidentiality.
Judge Cannon questioned Nauta to ensure that he understood the arguments and the potential consequences of his attorney’s representation. Nauta confidently affirmed his understanding. However, Harbach’s argument about the ethical prohibitions on questioning the credibility of former clients caused further opposition.
Stanton disagreed with the proposed ethical prohibitions, arguing that she should be allowed to question Witness 3 if necessary. Harbach’s argument faced criticism from both Nauta’s and De Oliveira’s attorneys, ultimately leading to the postponement of Nauta’s hearing.
The Garcia hearings shed light on the conflicts of interest that can arise in high-profile cases and the complexities faced by the defendants and their attorneys. The judge’s frustration with Harbach’s arguments highlights the importance of concise and well-prepared presentations in the courtroom. The postponed hearings for Nauta and De Oliveira demonstrate the significance of addressing potential conflicts of interest to maintain the integrity of the legal proceedings.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
