JUST IN: Judge Cannon Makes Major Decision In Trump’s Classified Documents Case

The federal judge overseeing former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case handed the prosecution a rare win on Wednesday.

Florida U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon sided with special counsel Jack Smith on a March filing by Trump co-defendant Walt Nauta related to documents being submitted for evidence. Cannon agreed with Smith that the documents in consideration will require “extensive redactions” before they are made public, Newsweek reports.

President Trump has been charged with 40 felony counts related to the handling and discovery of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago during a raid by the FBI in August of 2022. Smith, on behalf of the Justice Department, is arguing that the Republican and employees of his Florida residence should be punished for allegedly refusing to turn over materials from his time in the White House that were being requested by the U.S. National Archives (NARA). Trump has maintained he declassified all documents he retained.

(BREAKING: Glenn Beck reveals new Biden initiative that will bankrupt America)

Although Judge Cannon has broadly approved the unsealing of redacted documents, Wednesday’s decision came as a surprise to court observers who have come to expect the Trump appointee to deal setbacks to Smith on a regular basis. “PAPERLESS ORDER granting in part the Special Counsel’s Third Motion for Redactions [423] in accordance with the Court’s prior Orders [474] [492]. The Court expresses no opinion on any other requests contained in the Special Counsel’s Motion. Signed by Judge Aileen M. Cannon on 4/30/2024,” Cannon’s order reads.

Smith’s request for redactions references “a sealed grand jury proceeding in the District of Columbia that involved a third client of his counsel, but that was unrelated to this case,” while other documents name potential government witnesses. Smith previously secured a small victory when Judge Cannon allowed him to keep the identities of potential witnesses a secret from Trump’s defense team.

“As the Government has argued in its prior motions for redactions and/or sealing (ECF Nos. 348 and 384), witness safety and privacy are paramount pretrial. The limited redactions of the names satisfy the good cause standard established in Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc…as well as the higher standard requiring a compelling interest for the redactions and the redactions being narrowly tailored,” he wrote.