Trump's lawyers lobby hard for post-election trial date in Florida classified documents case – South Florida Sun Sentinel
Daily e-Edition
Evening e-Edition
Sign up for email newsletters
Sign up for email newsletters
Daily e-Edition
Evening e-Edition
Trending:
Lawyers representing Donald Trump in the U.S. Government’s classified documents case on Friday renewed their calls for the trial to start after the presidential election this November, prompting one prosecutor to wonder aloud that if defense attorneys wanted a post-election trial, why did they submit proposed trial dates for the summer?
As Trump and his nemesis, Special Counsel Jack Smith, looked on in the Fort Pierce courtroom without uttering a public word, their attorneys dueled over when the trial should be held, as well as whether the government deserves a reversal of a ruling by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that the names of government witnesses can be made public.
“A trial that takes place before the election is a mistake and should not happen,” said Trump attorney Todd Blanche. “You’re talking about taking Mr. Trump off the campaign trail for blocks of time for really no reason.”
Blanche asserted that the looming trials and an intense campaign schedule filled with presidential primaries makes a pre-election trial increasingly “unfair” to Trump and to “American citizens” who count on the democratic process.
The Trump legal team seemed to test Cannon’s patience by more than once pointing to a jammed schedule that will see Trump campaigning for a return to the White House while also facing a separate criminal trial in New York involving hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels on March 25. For the moment, Cannon has scheduled May 20 as the start date for the documents trial.
“Can we talk about the legal issues?” the judge asked at one point when a defense lawyer picked up the scheduling theme during the afternoon session.
Jay Bratt, one of the prosecutors, went to the brink of ridiculing the defense for offering a set of trial dates that would land in the summer, and then appearing in court the next day to argue for a much later starting time.
“Those are fake dates,” Bratt said of the time frames offered by the Trump lawyers. “Why did they even propose those dates?”
Cannon concluded the hearing without making any decisions, but throughout the day made it clear to both sides that she wants an orderly approach for handling pretrial issues, many of which are “complicated.”
Prosecutors are seeking to start in July, while Trump’s lawyers say the trial should wait until after the election, or August at the earliest.
At the behest of Cannon, both sides presented proposed dates late Thursday for hearing pretrial motions and for starting the trial. Smith’s office suggested July 8 to start the trial for Trump and co-defendants Waltine Nauta, a personal aide, and Carlos De Oliveira, the property manager of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach.
Blanche and Trump co-counsel Christopher Kise suggested two trials, one for Trump and De Oliveira on Aug. 12, and a separate one for Nauta on Sept. 9.
In their filing, Trump’s attorneys again insisted their client won’t be able to receive a fair trial before November’s presidential election.
“As the leading candidate in the 2024 election, President Trump strongly asserts that a fair trial cannot be conducted this year in a manner consistent with the Constitution, which affords President Trump a Sixth Amendment right to be present and to participate in these proceedings, as well as …. a First Amendment right that he shares with the American people to engage in campaign speech,” the lawyers wrote in their court filing.
Trump was indicted in June 2023 on charges related to alleged mishandling of classified documents, including a count under the Espionage Act. He is also accused of obstruction of justice, destruction or falsification of records, conspiracy and making false statements.
Nauta and De Oliveira also are charged with making false statements and conspiring to obstruct justice. All three defendants have pleaded not guilty.
Trump’s presence in court Friday was his second appearance in less than a month at the Alto Lee Adams Sr. United States Courthouse. On Feb. 12, the former president and his lawyers met personally with the judge in a closed session about classified materials.
In their scheduling filing, the defense lawyers alluded to this past week’s Supreme Court decision to assess whether Trump deserves immunity from prosecution on the grounds that his attempts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 presidential election won by Biden were part of his official presidential duties.
“In addition, yesterday’s Order by the Supreme Court agreeing to review the D.C. Circuit’s erroneous decision in United States v. Trump … was an important step toward the protection of the U.S. Constitution and fair system of justice that President Trump seeks in this District and elsewhere,” the attorneys wrote.
“The Justices’ anticipated ruling will provide guidance as Your Honor evaluates President Trump’s motion to dismiss the case based on presidential immunity,” they added.
But there was little or no discussion at the Friday hearing about immunity for Trump in the documents case.
Trump’s lawyers assert that the charges hinge on the former president’s alleged decision to designate the materials as “personal” under the Presidential Records Act. In turn, they argued Trump cannot be prosecuted since the decision was an “official act” he made while still in the White House.
Among other dismissal motions in the documents case, the defense is alleging “vindictive prosecution” by the Justice Department, that the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel was “unlawful,” and that the law the government is using to prosecute Trump is “unconstitutionally vague.”
The dismissal motion based on immunity assails the decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, which concluded that Trump could be prosecuted in the election interference case for acts committed while in office.
In their motion, Trump’s lawyers argue Cannon “should not follow the D.C. Circuit’s non-binding, poorly reasoned decision.”
The high court justices said they intend to decide “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
They directed the D.C. Circuit to withhold its mandate to allow the election case to proceed to trial in Washington until the nine justices rule on the immunity question. A hearing on the matter is expected in April.
On Thursday, a deadline that the judge set, the two sides submitted a proposed 31-page jury questionnaire to the court with notations pointing out disagreements over language from both sides.
Among the most notable is Question #71, which was suggested by the government and objected to by the defense:
“Do you believe the 2020 U.S. presidential election was stolen?”
The government also wants to know how prospective jurors feel about the FBI, and Department of Justice. The defense is not amenable to that question, either.
Overall the prospective jurors will face up to 100 questions ranging from standard inquiries about their personal backgrounds, occupations and participation in service organizations, to not-so-standard questions about whether they know any of the case participants including the defendants, and whether they have lived at or dealt with any properties owned by Trump.
Copyright © 2024 Sun Sentinel