Special Counsel Jack Smith absolutely dismantled a request from the legal team representing indicted former president Donald Trump to delay the ex-president’s trial for stealing and mishandling classified documents. The trial is set to begin in December.
Trump’s attorneys asked Judge Aileen Cannon to delay the trial indefinitely, which led to a scathing rebuke from Smith’s team of prosecutors as part of a Thursday court filing.
The United States files this reply in support of its Motion for Continuance and Proposed Revised Scheduling Order (ECF No. 34, “Mot.”). In their response in opposition to the Motion (ECF No. 66, “Resp.”), Defendants Trump and Nauta claim unequivocally that they cannot receive a fair trial prior to the conclusion of the next presidential election, urge the Court to withdraw the current scheduling Order (ECF No. 28), and request that the Court not even consider a new trial date until some unspecified later time. Resp. at 9, 10. There is no basis in law or fact for proceeding in such an indeterminate and open-ended fashion, and the Defendants provide none. For the reasons discussed below and in the Government’s Motion, the Court should reset the trial date in this action for December 11, 2023.
The filing also addresses Trump’s concerns that a fair and impartial jury cannot be selected to hear the case against him.
Defendants’ claim that this Court could not select an impartial jury until after the presidential election does not justify further delay here. Resp. at 9. First and most importantly, there is no reason to credit the claim. Our jury system relies on the Court’s authority to craft a thorough and effective jury selection process, and on prospective jurors’ ability and willingness to decide cases based on the evidence presented to them, guided by legal instructions from the Court. To be sure, the Government readily acknowledges that jury selection here may merit additional protocols (such as a questionnaire) and may be more time-consuming than in other cases, but those are reasons to start the process sooner rather than later.
Smith’s filing led former prosecutor Glenn Kirschner to remark that he hopes it’s a “sign of the prosecution to come.”
“This is a persuasive court pleading. A model of clarity, of brevity, of persuasion. It is only ten pages, double spaced. It’s a quick, easy read. I would urge people to read it, because it is clear. Jack Smith and his team don’t mince words. They don’t pull punches,” Kirschner told MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell Thursday evening.
“And I think that they are going to continue to insist on a timely trial date, and in fact on page one of this reading they highlight how the Trump defense team failed. And really, in its most important endeavor, when they filed their pleading on July 10th. They said judge, don’t set a trial date,” he added. “One of the first things Jack Smith pointed out, is that the Speedy Trial Act says the judge shall set a date certain for the trial to begin. So they really just sort of embarrass the Trump defense team’s request and they don’t let up for the ten pages. So I am encouraged that this is what we can expect from Jack Smith and his team.”
