Federal prosecutors have asked the judge overseeing the prosecution of Donald Trump, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira in the Southern District of Florida to hold a hearing that could result in Mr Nauta seeking new legal representation in the case against him.
Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office on Wednesday filed a motion asking Judge Aileen Cannon to schedule what is known as a “Garcia Hearing,” at which Mr Nauta would be informed that he has the right to be represented by a lawyer who does not represent any other party in the case against him.
The proceeding takes its name from a 1975 court case, United States v Garcia, in which an appeals court found that a defendant could use an attorney with a conflict of interest if they were properly informed as to the risks in doing so.
Prosecutors said they were asking for the hearing because Mr Nauta’s attorney, Stanley Woodward, has represented or is currently representing three other people who may be called to testify against the longtime Trump aide and his co-defendants when the case against them goes to trial in May 2024.
They explained that the hearing is needed because “an attorney who cross-examines a former or present client inherently encounters divided loyalties,” and suggested that Judge Cannon could “procure” an independent attorney to be present at the hearing to advise Mr Nauta should he wish to speak with them.
The special counsel’s office said Mr Woodward, who is paid by Mr Trump’s Save America Political Action Committee, represents seven persons who have been questioned during the government’s probe into the ex-president’s alleged mishandling of classified information.
Specifically, they said the individuals include the Mar-a-Lago IT director referenced in the indictment of Mr Trump, Mr Nauta and Mr De Oliveira as “Trump Employee 4” as well as two other Trump aides who worked for the ex-president “during his presidency and afterwards”.
Prosecutors also noted that they had previously told Mr Woodward in February and March of this year that his representation of the IT supervisor constituted a conflict because the employee would give evidence that was damaging to Mr Trump and Mr Nauta. The IT worker subsequently obtained a different attorney in early July, just a few weeks before the government obtained a superseding indictment of the ex-president and Mr Nauta and added Mr De Oliveira as a defendant in the case using the worker’s testimony.
Continuing, they said Mr Woodward’s representation of the potential witnesses raises a conflict of interest because it “may result in the attorney’s improper use or disclosure of the client’s confidences during the cross-examination” or result in the attorney “pulling his punches” during cross-examination of the witnesses to protect the client or his own personal interests.
“Where, as here, a potential conflict arises from an attorney’s simultaneous or successive representation of a defendant and a potential witness, a Garcia hearing is warranted. Nauta should be thoroughly advised of the potential conflicts and attendant risks,” they said.
Prosecutors added that the two witnesses other than the Mar-a-Lago IT worker should also attend the hearing so they can be advised of the risks of having Mr Woodward as an attorney.
A response to the government motion by Mr Nauta’s legal team is due on 16 August.
