Trump's latest attack on prosecutor Alvin Bragg knocked down by hush money judge
The judge overseeing Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial just knocked down the former president's latest attack on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, court records show.
Justice Juan Merchan Thursday issued a ruling denying Trump the right to publish documents tied to his attorney's unsuccessful argument for sanctioning Bragg over the delayed handover of discovery documents.
"This Court disagrees with Defendant and finds none of the disputed Items should be in the public docket," Merchan wrote.
Merchan's ruling ends a months-long effort from Trump's attorneys to publicly air documents linked to their successful effort to delay Trump's hush money trial and the failed effort to sanction Bragg and toss the charges.
ALSO READ: Trump campaign allegedly took ‘excessive’ contributions by the nickel and dime
Trump's legal team in March, about two weeks before his initial trial date, accused Bragg of violating discovery rules by delaying the handover of 31,000 pages from the U. S. Attorney's office of New York.
Bragg, out of an "abundance of caution" responded with a request that Trump's March 25 court date be pushed 30 days, then set about defending his office's actions.
Merchan held a hearing on March 25 to discuss the allegations but ultimately ruled Bragg's office had committed no wrong and the trial would continue on April 15.
Trump's lawyers then requested that documents and emails between the lawyers and the court be made public, a request to which Bragg's office objected outright, the ruling notes.
"[The documents] reveal core work product and sensitive communications between law enforcement agencies," prosecutors argued, according to Merchan's ruling.
Bragg's office also argued the documents had no relevance to the case and undermined a protective order regarding redactions.
Merchan agreed.
"The parties could have introduced exhibits into evidence at the Discovery Hearing but elected not to do so. As a result, the exhibits are not a part of the record and should therefore, not be in the public court file," Merchan wrote.
"Requiring that such routine communications be made part of every public court file would create an insurmountable and unnecessary burden upon the Courts."