A US district judge recently denied a motion presented by former US President Donald Trump that requested the disclosure of records from the House Select Committee’s investigation into the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol. Trump’s Motion for Pretrial Rule 17(c) Subpoena sought materials, which he claimed were “missing”, from seven different individuals. These included records from Representative Bennie Thompson, who chairs the January 6 committee, White House counsel Richard Sauber, among others related to the January 6 investigation.
Characterizing Trump’s motion as a “fishing expedition”, the judge ruled that the request for missing materials is overly broad and indistinct, not meeting the 3-prong test of Rule 17(c). Required under this rule is that a request must be relevant, admissible and specific – standards that the judge found Trump’s claims failed to live up to.
The legal framework that governs Trump’s subpoena is cited as the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). Implemented to expedite the discovery process, this rule allows courts “to direct that books, papers, documents or objects designated in the subpoena be produced before the court at a time prior to the trial”. However, Rule 17(c) is not intended “to provide a means of discovery for criminal cases”.
Reflecting this, the judge stated: “Accordingly, Rule 17(c) subpoenas are not appropriate where the moving party seeks materials ‘procurable reasonably in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence,’ or operate ‘as a general ‘fishing expedition’…Courts must be careful that rule 17(c) is not turned into a broad discovery device, thereby undercutting the strict limitation of discovery in criminal cases found in Fed. R. Crim. P. 16.”
This ruling follows the indictment of Trump in August on a multitude of charges related to interference in the 2020 election.
More details can be found on the original article here.