Judge in Mar-a-Lago docs case delivers blow to Jack Smith, considers tossing evidence from Trump’s former lawyer

The original decision, made by another judge, permitted the use of this information despite attorney-client privilege, citing the crime-fraud exception. This exception typically overrides attorney-client privilege if it can be proven that legal advice was used to commit a crime.

Cannon’s decision came just two days after Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors held a sealed hearing about whether or not to religitate the debate over the crime-fraud exception, according to the New York Times. Deputies for special counsel Jack Smith argued that readdressing this topic would “devolve into a ‘mini-trial’” before the actual trial takes place.

Judge Cannon reportedly dismissed this argument, stating that there is a difference between “a resource-wasting and delay-producing ‘mini-trial’” and a hearing that is “geared to adjudicating the contested factual and legal issues.”

“It is before this court — in this post-indictment context — to make factual findings on contested questions pertinent to the second prong of the crime-fraud exception,” Cannon wrote.

Judge Cannon's decision to revisit the legal arguments regarding the crime-fraud exception could potentially weaken the prosecution’s obstruction charges against Trump and further delay the trial.

The crime-fraud exception has been pivotal in the prosecution’s efforts to indict the former President. When Judge Beryl A. Howell determined that the legal work by one of Trump’s lawyers, M. Evan Corcoran, was likely used in the commission of a crime, prosecutors were able to question Corcoran in front of a grand jury and have him provide information that was eventually used in Trump’s indictment.