Smith's team 'screwed up': Expert says prosecutor let Cannon dodge Trump trial recusal

Special counsel Jack Smith and federal Judge Aileen Cannon's courtroom battle over witness protections in former President Donald Trump's classified documents case has baffled one legal expert who says neither side fought it right.

Lawfare senior editor Roger Parloff posted on X Wednesday his analysis of Cannon's Tuesday ruling, allowing Smith to seal the names of government witnesses and FBI agents, but also permitting their statements to appear on the public docket.

"Her 24-page order is defensive, blaming [Smith] for not having laid out his argument more clearly earlier...with some basis," Parloff writes. "[Smith]'s team isn’t flawless. Its failure to meaningfully respond to Trump’s & Press Coalition’s arguments for unsealing in [January] was baffling."

Parloff suggests Cannon was mindful of two past reversals on her rulings from the 11th Circuit appeals court and mounting calls for Smith to seek the Trump-appointed judge's' recusal when she issued this ruling.

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why Judge Cannon must step away from Trump trial immediately

But he also raises an eyebrow at Cannon's apparent inability to immediately understand the need for extra protections in a case that involves a former commander in chief, Secret Service agents' testimony and classified documents marked "top secret."

"Cannon’s failure to appreciate the categorical sensitivity of witness identities and statements...was also baffling," Parloff writes. "[Smith's] team likely assumed that Cannon, after 7 [years] experience...would appreciate those sensitivities. She didn’t."

Parloff calls Cannon's ruling a "forest-for-the-trees approach" that overemphasizes mechanical rules instead of the core of the content: "fricking witness identities & statements!"

Cannon's decision to put witness statements on the public docket concerned Parloff, who argued an important group of people who should not have access could read them.

"The persistent danger is that these could influence other witnesses’ testimony or be read by prospective jurors," Parloff writes.

But Parloff does not cast blame on Cannon alone.

"Only Smith can decide if those dangers warrant still seeking mandamus," concludes Parloff, referencing the first legal step Smith would take if he sought to have Cannon yanked.

"But given that Cannon backed down from the worst aspects of her initial order, and his own team screwed up here, I suspect he’ll move on. I think he’ll have other opportunities."