This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new legal filing in one of the multiple cases the Joe Biden-supervised Department of Justice has launched against Biden's top political opponent in the 2024 presidential race, President Donald Trump, suggests that the prosecutor who brought charges against Trump is misbehaving.

Legally.

Smith has brought a couple of cases against Trump, including a recent one that claims Trump – improperly – had documents including classified papers from his presidency in his own home.

Criminal charges have been filed against Trump and a couple of others in that case.

Curiously, both Mike Pence and Joe Biden also were confirmed to have had in their possession classified papers from when they were not president, but vice president. Yet no charges have come in either of those cases.

Now a report at the Right Scoop documents that Trump's defense lawyers, along with lawyers defending Trump employee Walt Nauta, have submitted a court brief charging Smith "improperly" used two different grand juries in this case.

It was Bloomberg that reported Smith apparently used a grand jury in Washington, and another in Florida, and then brought charges in Florida.

The report explained, "The former president and his personal aide were indicted in June by a South Florida grand jury. But much of the investigation unfolded in Washington in the months leading up to that. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office said prosecutors continued to use a grand jury in the nation’s capital after securing the original indictment, before a Florida grand jury returned an expanded, superseding version on July 27."

The defense lawyers have explained that using two panels in two locations is "improper." And the result is that it could affect the "evidence" that Smith uses in court.

The Right Scoop said, "A long line of court rulings have held that prosecutors can’t go back to a grand jury to gather more evidence once they’ve brought an indictment. But there are exceptions if the government is investigating other crimes or potential defendants. A case also can’t be presented to a grand jury in a given location unless it’s where the alleged offense took place."

Previously, the judge in the case, District Judge Aileen Cannon, had demanded answers from Smith on his scheme to use more than one grand jury, including his apparent plan to "continue" investigating even after an indictment.

Reports described Cannon's ruling on the dispute as "stinging," and it came at a time when the judge ordered two sealed filings from Smith struck from the record.

Cannon concluded, "The Special Counsel states in conclusory terms that the supplement should be sealed from public view 'to comport with grand jury secrecy,' but the motion for leave and the supplement plainly fail to satisfy the burden of establishing a sufficient legal or factual basis to warrant sealing the motion and supplement."