(CN) — Federal prosecutors say an IT specialist at Mar-a-Lago initially lied to a grand jury about Donald Trump’s alleged scheme to delete incriminating security footage at the Florida resort.
The unidentified employee recanted after dropping his private attorney, who was being paid for by the Republican presidential candidate's political action committee, according to a filing Tuesday from the Department of Justice.
Prosecutors offered the new details to explain why they want U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to determine whether the attorney, Stanley Woodward, should continue to represent defendant Walt Nauta in the case.
The Department of Justice also addressed concerns initially raised by Cannon, a Trump appointee, about the use of an out-of-district grand jury to investigate the case.
Nauta, a Navy veteran and Trump’s aide, is accused of helping his boss hide classified documents at Mar-a-Lago last summer even while federal authorities were demanding their return. Federal prosecutors say that after a grand jury issued a subpoena for security footage from the club, Nauta conspired with Trump and another employee, Carlos De Oliveira, to pressure the IT specialist to delete the footage.
The IT specialist denied knowing about the scheme in March when he first appeared before a grand jury in the District of Columbia, according to Tuesday’s filing. De Oliveira also claimed ignorance at the hearing.
The Department of Justice filed a 38-count indictment on June 8 charging Trump and Nauta with violating the Espionage Act and obstruction-related offenses, respectively. Meanwhile, the grand jury continued to investigate the “false statements” the IT specialist and De Oliveira made in March.
The investigative body issued two subpoenas for security footage from Mar-a-Lago “that related directly to De Oliveira’s solicitation of Trump Employee 4 to delete security footage, as well as the false denials of the same by both witnesses,” the filing states.
The IT specialist was informed in a June 20 target letter he was under investigation on suspicion of perjury.
The target letter “crystallized” the conflict of interest inherent in Woodward’s dual representation of the IT specialist and Nauta, the filing states.
“Advising Trump Employee 4 to correct his sworn testimony would result in testimony incriminating Mr. Woodward’s other client, Nauta; but permitting Trump Employee 4’s false testimony to stand uncorrected would leave Trump Employee 4 exposed to criminal charges for perjury,” according to the filing.
The Department of Justice informed the judge overseeing the grand jury of the apparent conflict June 29. The judge appointed the IT specialist a federal public defender to provide independent advice on the issue.
The employee told the court days later he no longer wished to be represented by Woodward.
“Immediately after receiving new counsel, Trump Employee 4 retracted his prior false testimony and provided information that implicated Nauta, De Oliveira, and Trump in efforts to delete security camera footage, as set forth in the superseding indictment,” prosecutors wrote.
A superseding indictment filed July 27 charged all three defendants in the scheme to destroy security footage.
Woodward’s representation of Nauta remains an issue, prosecutors argue. The IT specialist will be a key witness at trial in May, when he will likely face cross-examination by Woodward about his inconsistent statements before the grand jury — statements he made when Woodward represented him.
Prosecutors also defended their use of the D.C. grand jury to investigate the security footage allegations.
Woodward and his co-counsel Sasha Dadan, a Pierce, Florida, solo practitioner, argued last week the Department of Justice improperly used the grand jury to collect evidence after filing charges. Federal rules prohibit the practice, as it can undermine the discovery process.
Federal prosecutors argued it is “well established” that the government can continue to use a grand jury to investigate unindicted co-conspirators or pursue additional charges against defendants, which is what happened in this case.
“Not only was it appropriate to use the grand jury to investigate false statements by Trump Employee 4 and De Oliveira, it was appropriate to use the grand jury in the District of Columbia, where the statements were made and where venue for any false-statement charges would be proper,” the filing states.
The Department of Justice has raised similar concerns about De Oliveira's attorney, John Irving.
A hearing to address the issues has not been scheduled.
Follow @SteveGarrisonPC
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
First Amendment action filed against Texas court clerks April 26, 2024 -
