Special counsel Jack Smith asked U.S. District judge Aileen Cannon to reverse her recent decision that could expose potential witnesses in the Mar-a-Lago case to threats from Donald Trump supporters.
The special counsel's office filed a motion to reconsider the ruling, which they called a "clear error" that defied an 11th Circuit Court precedent, to publicly release discovery documents in unredacted form at the request of the former president and media groups, reported Politico's Kyle Cheney.
"That discovery material, if publicly docketed in unredacted form as the Court has ordered, would disclose the identities of numerous potential witnesses, along with the substance of the statements they made to the FBI or the grand jury, exposing them to significant and immediate risks of threats, intimidation, and harassment, as has already happened to witnesses, law enforcement agents, judicial officers, and Department of Justice employees whose identities have been disclosed in cases in which defendant Trump is involved," the filing stated.
READ MORE: ‘Worst scenario’: Republican senator feeling used and abused by MAGA
Smith's office said the judge did not give enough consideration to concerns about witness safety despite threats to herself and other judges involved in Trump cases.
"The Court's conclusion that the Government's witness-safety concerns are too speculative or generalized is misplaced," the filing stated. "A court's duty is to prevent harms to the witnesses or the judicial process 'at their inception,' before they are realized and dysfunction envelops the trial."
Prosecutors asked Cannon to reconsider the release of unredacted FBI interview reports of witnesses who fear public exposure, testimony that reveals nonpublic details about the layout of Mar-a-Lago, and identify a White House aide who testified about how presidents review classified materials.
Smith argued the judge incorrectly stated that the government must show a compelling interest in keeping documents private, saying that standard does not apply to documents filed to satisfy discovery requirements.
"The Eleventh Circuit has held that the compelling-interest standard applied by the Court does not apply to 'documents filed in connection with motions to compel discovery,' which instead may be sealed or redacted simply upon a showing of 'good cause,'" prosecutors stated. "Because the Court applied the wrong legal standard... reconsideration is warranted to 'correct clear error.'"
