FORT PIERCE, Fla. – The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s criminal case in South Florida said Tuesday she doesn’t think the 2024 election will be a deciding factor for her in determining when the former president’s historic trial begins .
U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon made the comments during a nearly two-hour public hearing the 37-count criminal indictment that special counsel Jack Smith obtained in June against Trump and his personal servant and co-defendant, Walt Nauta.
Among Cannon’s first priorities is setting a timetable for the legal proceedings, and Tuesday’s hearing marked the first time he has brought together federal prosecutors and defense attorneys for Trump and Nauta to discuss the matter.
Smith’s team has been pushing for Trump’s trial to begin in mid-December, while lawyers for Trump and Nauta want the entire proceeding to be delayed until after the 2024 election in which the former president is running hoping to get his old job back at the White House. .
During Tuesday’s hearing, Smith’s team appeared to acknowledge that its December proposal was aspirational.
“We think it’s very important that we have a trial date to work from, realizing that the trial date may not be set in stone,” said Jay Bratt, chief of the Counterintelligence Section. and Export Control of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice. .
That timeline may depend on whether the cases against Trump and Nauta are labeled complex, a designation the government has opposed. Cannon seemed inclined to find that it did, and pressed prosecutors about whether any similar Espionage Act cases had such an ambitious timetable. Bratt appeared to admit that he could find none, though he added that Trump’s case differed from the fold in one important respect. The evidence has been available for nearly a year, since the FBI searched and seized the documents at issue in the case in August 2022.
Pressing both the government and defense, Cannon also showed little interest in basing his final decision on waiting until the November 2024 election.
“I can appreciate that more time is needed, but we have to set a schedule,” Cannon told Trump’s attorney, Todd Blanche, early in the afternoon session.
Cannon, a Trump appointee, did not rule on a trial date during Tuesday’s hearing. Instead, he said he would weigh a number of other factors in determining a timetable, including the volume of discovery materials Smith’s team will turn over to Trump’s defense so it can prepare for trial.
Court watchers have seen the trial schedule as a key test for Cannon, whose rulings in favor of the 45th president of the United States received a strong rebuke late last year.
After the FBI seized the Mar-a-Lago documents in August 2022, Cannon issued an injunction preventing the government from using them in its investigation. A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit overturned that order in a scathing rebuke that accused Cannon of undertaking a “radical” restructuring of the criminal procedure on behalf of the former president.
In the shadow of that decision, Cannon rebuffed attempts by the Trump team to weigh the political background of the case into its consideration, or for prosecutors to respond to insinuations of political persecution by the legal team of the former president Trump’s lawyer, Christopher Kise, previously hinted, but had not directly stated, that they wanted to delay a trial until after the 2024 election.
At one point, Cannon pressured Kise to record this wish.
“Is your position that there can be no judgment until after the election?” asked the judge.
After Kise answered in the affirmative, Cannon told him that the volume of discovery and anticipated motions would provide him with a more “adequate” framework under the Speedy Trial Act. Trump’s lawyers previously accused the government of seeking a “fast-track” criminal trial, but special counsel David Harbach said that wording backs that up.
“It’s not a snap judgment that needs to be justified,” Harbach noted. “It is a departure from a speedy judgment that must be justified.”
Despite the Justice Department’s unprecedented prosecution of a former president, Harbach argued that Trump was no different than any other “important, busy person” who has been indicted.
“In short, Mr. Trump is not the president,” Harbach added.
Blanche countered that Harbach’s argument was “intellectually dishonest.” Both Blanche and Kise stated that the public views the DOJ prosecution as a case of a leading presidential candidate being prosecuted by the administration of his likely rival.
Infuriated by this argument, Harbach shot back at this “spurious” statement, noting that a special counsel was appointed to insulate the case from politics. His team, he added, is made up of career prosecutors, not political appointees.
Now that a grand jury of ordinary citizens has indicted Trump, Harbach said, “The law requires a trial.”
Cannon indicated at the end of the hearing that he would issue a written order “immediately.”
English 
Español de Venezuela