(Ken Silva, Headline USA) Attorneys for alleged would-be Trump assassin Ryan Routh have asked Judge Aileen Cannon to bar the Justice Department from introducing evidence that their client was in touch with a human trafficker in Mexico about smuggling Afghans into the U.S. last year—arguing that such evidence is irrelevant to whether Routh tried killing Trump last September.
Information about Routh’s human smuggling efforts was included in an April 8 motion from the DOJ, which seeks to introduce about Routh’s purported plans to kill Trump. According to that DOJ motion, Routh used aliases, he was in touch with a human smuggler in Mexico about an escape plan, and he attempted to buy both a rocket launcher and a .50 caliber sniper rifle in late August.
The DOJ’s motion stated that Routh was in touch with the Mexican smuggler, identified in court records only as “Ramiro,” since at least February 2024, when they discussed smuggling an Afghan family into the U.S.
“While this February chat involved smuggling others, it is necessary context for how that same chat evolved on September 13th and 14th, the two days before Routh set up his sniper hide at Trump International, when he contacted Ramiro for the first time since February 29,” the DOJ’s April 8 motion stated.
Ryan Routh's attorneys want to bar the DOJ from introducing evidence that their client was in touch with a human trafficker in Mexico about smuggling Afghans into the U.S. last year—arguing that such evidence is irrelevant to whether Routh tried killing Trump last September.… https://t.co/CJdSSxICuj pic.twitter.com/VlZ9nwZ0Us
— Ken Silva (@JD_Cashless) April 22, 2025
“On those two days, Routh told Ramiro that he would be in Mexico City in the days immediately after September 15, with Ramiro responding that he would see Routh then and that he was located four hours outside of Mexico City and with Routh replying that he would call Ramiro once he knew for sure whether he’d meet him—something Routh planned through extensive web searches about travel to Mexico.”
Responding to that information, Routh’s defense attorneys said Monday that they’re OK with the DOJ presenting evidence of their client’s communications with Ramiro from last September—but not from earlier that year.
“The February chats involved bringing a family into the United States from Mexico. In the second chat, approximately six months later, Mr. Routh simply informed Ramiro that he would be traveling to Mexico later that month,” Routh’s attorneys argued.
“These communications are better characterized as sporadic or episodic rather than evolving. The February chats are too attenuated from the charged offenses or Mr. Routh’s alleged flight to Mexico to be admissible.”
Routh’s attorneys also have no objection to evidence of Routh trying to buy a rocket launcher, sniper rifle, or that he used aliases. The defense has, however, objected to the DOJ’s move to introduce Routh’s past criminal convictions as evidence.
“Mr. Routh has no prior convictions for committing acts of extreme violence,” they argued.
Tainted Witness?
Also on Monday, the DOJ responded to Routh’s motion to exclude testimony from a witness who purportedly saw Routh flee the crime scene last September.
According to Routh’s attorneys, the FBI manipulated the witness, who is identified in court records as “T.C.M.,” into identifying their client as the man who fled Donald Trump’s Florida golf course after a Secret Service agent spotted him hiding in the nearby bushes. The defense has noted that the witness told police that the man fleeing was in his 20s (Routh was 58 at the time of his arrest) and that the Nissan X-Terra that fled the scene had a sunroof (it didn’t).
On Monday, the DOJ said the witness was highly reliable, those two mistakes notwithstanding.
“It is true the witness believed that a slim man with dyed blond hair, who was sprinting across the street in baggy clothes, was younger than Routh’s actual age. It is also possible he mistook the open window of Routh’s Xterra for a ‘sunroof.’ But that’s it,” the DOJ said.
“Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that an eyewitness’s description must be exact. On the contrary, courts examine whether the identification was reliable based on the totality of the circumstances; not whether the witness got every detail right.”
Legal issues aside, the court filings repeatedly identify the witness as a man, which runs counter to Trump’s previous statements about the witness being female.
After the Sept. 15 attempt on his life, Donald Trump praised the "woman" who photographed the would-be assassin fleeing the scene.
“Women are smarter than men,” he said of the witness, adding that he would like to meet her.
A local news station also interviewed this female… https://t.co/6CYVGNWKu3 pic.twitter.com/VjF8FfXI8O— Ken Silva (@JD_Cashless) April 22, 2025
The parties have until this Monday to reply to their respective counterparties’ motions. Routh’s next court hearing is scheduled for May 14. His trial is set for September.
Ken Silva is the editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/jd_cashless.
