app<\/a>earing in Florida, including Trump aide Taylor Budowich, who tweeted Wednesday that he was compelled to answer questions in the probe.<\/p>\nThe move is a sign Smith is weighing filing charges there in addition to or instead of D.C., as defendants have a right to face trial where the alleged crime took place.<\/p>\n
Determining the venue isn\u2019t a low-stakes decision. A defendant can move to dismiss charges they believe haven\u2019t been brought in the correct location.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt signals that charges are likely to be in Florida, which also signals that I think the special counsel likely did not believe that he had venue for one or more of the charges in D.C.,\u201d Brandon Van Grack, a former top national security lawyer with the Department of Justice (DOJ) who is now in private practice, told The Hill.\u00a0<\/p>\n
But bringing the charges in Florida raises other considerations.<\/p>\n
\u201cFor viewers who might be thinking, \u2018Who cares as long as there are charges? Whether it\u2019s D.C. or Florida, why does the venue matter?\u2019 It really could make a huge difference. The jury pool is different. The judges are different,\u201d Andrew Weissmann, who was one of the lead prosecutors on the Mueller investigation, said during an appearance on MSNBC.<\/p>\n<\/aside>\n\u201cAlso, D.C. is a location where the court is very used to dealing with classified information. There\u2019s an expertise there. So in terms of speed, getting this case to trial, the venue matters.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Trump\u2019s legal team has been informed he is a target in the Mar-a-Lago probe, a move that usually precedes the filing of charges.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Trump could face a multitude of charges in connection with the mishandling of records at Mar-a-Lago, including Espionage Act charges for willful retention of documents, as well as obstruction of justice charges stemming from the effort to keep them.<\/p>\n<\/aside>\nBut while the effort to recover the documents stemmed from Washington \u2014 first from the National Archives and then from the DOJ \u2014 the timeline of the movement of the documents is at play in the case.<\/p>\n
Trump\u2019s legal team argued in a Supreme Court brief that he was still president while the boxes containing the classified documents were moved to Florida.\u00a0<\/p>\n
If true, his team may be able to successfully argue to a judge that the conduct in question was initiated in the Sunshine State.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/aside>\nThough the DOJ could try to make the case that Trump had involvement in the packing of the boxes during the D.C.-based transition, Van Grack notes that several circuits have determined that preparatory acts alone cannot be used to determine venue.<\/p>\n
For obstruction of justice charges too, much of the activity appears to have occurred in Florida.<\/p>\n
Prosecutors have zeroed in on a number of actions at Mar-a-Lago, from the failure to turn over all classified records following a subpoena last summer to video camera footage showing the movement of boxes in and out of a storage room.<\/p>\n<\/aside>\nA D.C. judge compelled testimony from Trump attorney Evan Corcoran after determining he may have been misled about how many documents remained at Mar-a-Lago. Corcoran returned 38 in response to the June 2022 subpoena, while the FBI found over 100 more when they searched the residence in August.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Judges can pierce attorney-client privilege if they believe legal advice was given in furtherance of a crime, and Corcoran has since recused himself from the case.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Most recently, CNN reported that prosecutors have also been asking questions about the flooding of a room that housed servers of security footage after a Mar-a-Lago employee drained a pool.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/aside>\nObstruction charges in this case require proving a defendant knowingly concealed records and that they knowingly sought to impede an investigation.\u00a0<\/p>\n
While subpoenas for the documents and video footage may have been issued in Washington, the D.C. circuit has held that the venue must be tied to where the unlawful conduct was committed.<\/p>\n
On that front, prosecutors could be eyeing charges for more than just Trump.<\/p>\n<\/aside>\nDOJ officials have also been examining Walt Nauta, Trump\u2019s valet who was spotted on security camera footage moving some of the boxes.<\/p>\n
Timothy Parlatore, who until last month served as one of Trump\u2019s attorneys in the matter and who has maintained the former president should not face charges in the probe, said there would be no basis for charging Nauta in D.C., and the same holds true for Trump.<\/p>\n
\u201cUltimately, I haven\u2019t seen anything in this case that would indicate that D.C. has jurisdiction. It\u2019s something that when [top DOJ prosecutor] Jay Bratt opened the investigation, he started with a D.C. grand jury. I don\u2019t think they had any basis to believe that there was jurisdiction in D.C. but that\u2019s what he did. And that\u2019s what Smith inherited,\u201d Parlatore said.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf they\u2019re actually now getting down to where the rubber meets the road, they have to really consider, can they make out venue.\u201d<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not entirely an either\/or decision for Smith.<\/p>\n
Prosecutors could bring different charges in different jurisdictions, trying Trump in two different cases.<\/p>\n
Some see a benefit to bringing certain charges in D.C., where judges more routinely deal with classified information and some consider the jury pool to be more favorable to the DOJ.<\/p>\n
On the warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, prosecutors also noted they were investigating charges for concealment or removal of government records, a crime that requires showing a willful effort to keep the government from accessing its documents.<\/p>\n
The charge could be one of the safest bets for bringing in D.C.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe existence of a separate grand jury in Florida considering evidence in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case strongly suggests that there may be *two* indictments due to venue issues, as there was in the [Paul] Manafort case,\u201d Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, wrote on Twitter<\/a>, referencing Trump\u2019s former campaign manager.<\/p>\n\u201cCertain potential crimes occurred *only* in Florida.\u201d<\/p>\n
But Van Grack said he doesn\u2019t think that\u2019s likely, given the DOJ\u2019s own timeline considerations.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not that you can\u2019t bring charges into different districts. But let\u2019s also keep in mind, the special counsel, the Department of Justice has to try this case as quickly as possible to minimize the impact on the election. So the notion of bringing two different cases in two districts, I think would seem unlikely,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou can do it. It delays things. It takes additional time. And I think it would be unlikely considering the time pressure that the Department of Justice is under to pursue that course.\u201d<\/p>\n
Weissmann wrote Thursday that the safest bet<\/a> is to bring the case in Florida.\u00a0<\/p>\n\u201cAll else being equal, the prudent prosecutor will be reluctant to choose a venue where, if the government gets the venue decision wrong, it cannot proceed to try the defendant in another district for her crimes,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cThus, although Florida may be a less advantageous district for the government \u2014 given its jury pool and its judges, who are less steeped in handling classified document cases \u2026 Florida is legally a less risky venue at this juncture.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media<\/a> Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/thehill.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2023\/02\/f6af4ad5e2ec4eaaa8801f51d9c26296-e1682608022291.jpg?w=900\")
<\/p>\n