Rawley
quote:
In
their 12-page filing, the prosecutors dismissed as a “conspiracy theory” a separate claim that Mr. Trump has raised in his own defense — that Mr. Biden had “secretly directed” the classified documents case and used the special counsel who filed the indictment, Jack Smith, as a “puppet” and a “stalking horse.”
BACKGROUND
On January 16, 2024, the defendants filed (ECF No. 262) a motion to compel discovery
under Rule 16 and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), seeking an array of materials that, they
speculated, could help substantiate their baseless theories of political animus and bias. In response,
the Government explained (ECF No. 277 at 21-23, 31-38) that a request for this sort of discovery
falls outside the scope of Rule 16 and Brady and is instead governed by the rigorous requirements
set forth in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 468 (1996), and cases applying Armstrong,
including United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 810 (11th Cir. 2000). The defendants did not cite
Armstrong or Smith in their motion to compel, let alone attempt to satisfy the requisite standard.
In their reply (ECF No. 300), the defendants, for the first time, cited Armstrong and
attempted to make the showing required by Armstrong/Smith. The Government objected on
procedural grounds, arguing that it was improper for the defendants to use a reply brief to raise
these new arguments and evidence, and asked the Court either to defer consideration of whether
the defendants could make the Armstrong/Smith showing until pretrial motions were filed (since
the defendants had already indicated that they intended to file a motion for dismissal based on
selective and vindictive prosecution at that time), or, alternatively, to grant the Government leave
to file a surreply. ECF No. 305. The Court granted the motion in part and authorized the
Government to file a surreply on or before February 26, 2024. ECF No. 319.
www.nytimes.com
www.npr.org
