Former President Trumpâs valet, Walt Nauta, was charged last year alongside the former president for allegedly obstructing law enforcement regarding classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
Mr. Nauta attempted to dismiss the case on grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution, a motion also raised separately by former President Trump.
To succeed in such a motion, the defendant must demonstrate that âsimilarly situated individuals were not prosecutedâ and that the prosecution was âmotivated by a discriminatory purpose.â
Judge Cannon stated, âNeither prong is satisfied in this case.â
The judge found that Mr. Nauta failed to identify a comparable case and did not prove that he was indicted due to a discriminatory motive.
Related Stories
The judge has yet to rule on former President Trumpâs motion to dismiss; he contends that other high-ranking officials, including former presidents, retained classified information without facing prosecution. Mr. Nauta supported former President Trumpâs motion, but the judge determined that Mr. Nautaâs situation differs from that of former officials.
Grand Jury Issues
Mr. Nautaâs defense heavily relied on allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. He argued that he was indicted for refusing to testify before a grand jury a second time, citing his Fifth Amendment rights. Despite voluntarily speaking with the FBI and appearing before the grand jury once, the judge pointed out that Mr. Nauta did not explicitly invoke his Fifth Amendment rights as required by legal precedent.
Judge Cannon concluded that even if Mr. Nauta had invoked his Fifth Amendment rights, he failed to provide evidence that the charges were brought as a punishment for doing so.
Mr. Nautaâs attorney, Stanley Woodward, also alleged prejudice by prosecutors, claiming that prosecutor Jay Bratt implied Mr. Woodwardâs chances at a judgeship depended on Mr. Nautaâs cooperation. Prosecutors vehemently denied this, with attorney David Harbach protesting loudly at a meeting, prompting the judge to caution him about decorum.
Judge Cannon stated that both sides presented conflicting accounts, and she did not side with either party. She emphasized that animosity towards an attorney does not constitute evidence of vindictive prosecution against a defendant.
Trumpâs legal team also raised concerns of prosecutorial misconduct during grand jury proceedings, asserting a breach of attorney-client privilege.
Delay After Supreme Court Ruling
On July 6, the judge also granted former President Trumpâs request for additional time in the schedule to discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its implications for this case.
The judge has postponed several upcoming deadlines until July 18 to allow prosecutors to submit a response, with no other deadlines affected.
