Naasón Joaquín García faces judicial setback as U.S. judge restricts access to sensitive evidence in his case

Naasón Joaquín García, the leader of La Luz del Mundo, has encountered his first judicial challenge in the United States as he faces criminal proceedings. Judge Loretta Preska of the South District Court of New York ruled that he will not be allowed direct access to the most sensitive evidence in his case. This decision follows a motion by federal prosecutors from the U.S. Department of Justice, who sought to restrict access to certain materials under the “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” (AEO) classification.

The evidence in question includes a substantial amount of electronically stored information (ESI), such as data from cell phones, storage devices, iCloud accounts, email accounts, financial records, travel records, photographs, videos, and law enforcement reports. Prosecutors argued that some of this material contains highly sensitive information that could compromise privacy, hinder ongoing investigations, or pose risks of harmful publicity if disclosed prematurely.

The U.S. government justified the AEO classification under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows courts to limit access to information when it is necessary to protect witnesses, prevent perjury, or safeguard sensitive data. This measure is intended to ensure the integrity of the judicial process and the safety of those involved.

García’s legal team, represented by Werksman Jackson & Quinn LLP, contested the decision, asserting that denying the defendant access to all evidence violates his right to an effective defense under the Sixth Amendment. They argued that withholding all information from the client is neither ethical nor practical, as it hinders the ability of defense attorneys to prepare a full and accurate defense.

The court’s ruling underscores the complexities of balancing the rights of the accused with the need to protect sensitive information in high-profile cases. As the proceedings continue, the legal battle over access to evidence will likely remain a focal point of the case.