Federal prosecutors requested a hearing to inform Donald Trump’s valet, Walt Nauta, about his lead lawyer’s potential conflicts of interest stemming from his defense work for at least three witnesses that could testify against Nauta and the former president in the classified documents case.
The prosecutors made the request to US district court judge Aileen Cannon on Wednesday, explaining that Nauta’s lead lawyer, Stanley Woodward, represents two key Trump employees and formerly advised the Mar-a-Lago IT director, Yuscil Taveras, who is cooperating in the case.
“All three of these witnesses may be witnesses for the government at trial, raising the possibility that Mr Woodward might be in the position of cross-examining past or current clients,” prosecutors wrote in the 11-page court filing. “These potential conflicts warrant a Garcia hearing.”
At issue is Woodward’s prior representation of Taveras during the grand jury investigation earlier this year, when prosecutors concluded that Taveras had evidence that incriminated Nauta and had enough of his own legal exposure to warrant sending him a target letter.
After Trump and Nauta were indicted in the classified documents case on 8 June, Taveras changed lawyers and swapped out Woodward, whose legal bills were being paid by Trump’s political action committee Save America, and retained a new lawyer on 5 July.
In the weeks that followed, Taveras decided to share more evidence with prosecutors about how Nauta and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira had asked him to delete surveillance footage – details that resulted last week in a superseding indictment against Trump, Nauta and De Oliveira.
Trump and Nauta were charged last month in a sprawling indictment that outlined how Trump retained national security documents and obstructed the government’s efforts to retrieve them with the help of Nauta, who was seen moving boxes of documents on surveillance tapes, and lied to the FBI.
The superseding indictment, filed in federal district court in Miami, added a new section titled “The Attempt to Delete Security Camera Footage” that described a scheme to wipe a server containing surveillance footage that showed boxes of classified documents being removed from the Mar-a-Lago storage room.
The court filing said that Taveras told prosecutors he was unopposed to Woodward continuing to represent Nauta, but did not consent to Woodward using or disclosing his confidential deliberations in the course of defending Nauta.
That would mean Woodward could face some limits in how vigorously he could defend Nauta at trial, since he might be obligated to stand down certain arguments he might have otherwise used to attack Taveras’s testimony during cross-examination.
“An attorney’s cross-examination of a former or current client raises two principal dangers. First, the conflict may result in the attorney’s improper use or disclosure of the client’s confidences during the cross-examination. Second, the conflict may cause the attorney to pull his punches,” the filing said.
Woodward could not immediately be reached for comment, but he has previously indicated he would file a motion in response.
In their court filing, prosecutors added there could be additional conflicts for Woodward because out of the eight total witnesses who were ensnared by the grand jury investigation, the government intended to use at least two of them against Trump and Nauta at trial.
The first witness “worked in the White House during Trump’s presidency and then subsequently worked for Trump’s post-presidential office in Florida” and the second “worked for Trump’s reelection campaign and worked for Trump’s political action committee after Trump’s presidency ended”.
That raised the possibility of Woodward having multiple clients testifying against each other, and ultimately against Trump, with whom Nauta is said to be in an informal joint-defense agreement, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter.
