The federal judge presiding over the prosecution of Greg Craig is no longer considering whether to recuse herself from the case, after defense lawyers for the former Obama White House counsel abandoned plans to introduce evidence involving the judge's former law firm.

Craig's defense lawyers had told U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia this week that they might show jurors a report that her former firm, Trout Cacheris & Solomon, prepared in 2010 for Ukraine, the country at the center of Craig's case. Jackson had been a partner at the firm from 2000 to 2011, when she joined the federal bench, but she had not worked on the report.

Prosecutors charged Craig in April with making false and misleading statements about his work for Ukraine to avoid reporting it to the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, an 80-year-old law requiring the disclosure of foreign influence in the United States.

Although Craig has not been charged with violating FARA, his defense team has taken steps to show at trial that his work for Ukraine—as a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom— did not require him to register with the Justice Department. Craig's lawyers plan to point to examples of other firms that worked for foreign governments and officials but did not register under FARA. A report Trout Cacheris prepared for Ukraine, in 2010, had been one of those examples.

But Craig's defense lawyers advised Jackson on Friday they were dropping plans to mention the report Trout Cacheris prepared on alleged financial improprieties by Yulia Tymoshenko, a former prime minister of Ukraine and political rival of the country's president at the time, Viktor Yanukovych. The move appeared to end the discussion about whether Jackson should recuse herself.

“The bottom line is that I determined this morning that I should not be deciding whether this evidence is relevant or not. And what you've told me this afternoon is I don't have to decide because you've decided you don't want to put it before the jury,” Jackson said Friday on a call with the lawyers in the case. “And if that's your decision, then I agree with you, that I don't need to recuse myself or refer the evidentiary issues to another court.”

Earlier in the call, Jackson said she wanted to confirm that the defense team would not later argue they had been “pressured in any way to withdraw this evidence” by her proposal to have another judge consider the Trout Cacheris evidence and rule on it.

A lawyer for Craig, Zuckerman Spaeder partner William Murphy, affirmed that the defense team had not felt pressured. The decision to back away from the evidence involving Trout Cacheris, he said, was made “based on the complexity of the procedures that would be necessary to solve the problem.”

“And we thought that a better solution, in light of all of the facts that we are aware of, would be to agree not to introduce any evidence regarding the Trout Cacheris report,” he said.

Jackson had proposed an unusual approach to remain on the case and avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” Jackson determined another judge could rule on the admissibility of evidence concerning the work of Trout Cacheris and other firms. If the judge had allowed the evidence involving her former firm, Jackson said she would revisit the question of whether to recuse herself.

Craig's defense lawyers still hope to present evidence about dealings between major U.S. law firms and Ukraine that was not registered under FARA. Prosecutors have questioned the relevancy of that evidence given that Craig has not been charged with violating FARA. Craig's trial is set to begin Aug. 12.