Trump’s federal trial in election subversion case set for March 2024

 

Trump’s federal trial in election subversion case set for March 2024

 

Schedule set by Judge Tanya Chutkan means Trump’s first trial defending himself will come at height of primary season

 

Hugo Lowell in Washington

@hugolowell

Mon 28 Aug 2023 16.32 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/28/trump-trial-date-2020-election-tanya-chutkan

 

Donald Trump’s criminal trial for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results will take place on 4 March 2024, the federal judge presiding over the case in Washington ruled on Monday, marking a sharp repudiation of the former president who had sought to delay the case for years.

 

The schedule set by US district court judge Tanya Chutkan means Trump’s first trial defending himself against prosecutors and the special counsel Jack Smith will be the election subversion case – and it will come during the height of the 2024 Republican primary season.

 

“The events giving rise to this case occurred at the end of 2020 and the beginning of 2021. To propose trying this case over five years later risks the real danger that witnesses become unavailable or their memories may fade,” Chutkan said. “My primary concern here, as it is, in every case, is the interest of justice and that I’ve balanced the defendant’s right to adequately prepare.”

 

Trump pleaded not guilty earlier this month to charges filed in federal district court in Washington that he conspired to defraud the United States, conspired to obstruct an official proceeding, obstructed an official proceeding and engaged in a conspiracy against rights.

 

The former president had asked ahead of the hearing for the trial to take place in April 2026, citing the supposed “median time” of 29.2 months that it took to convict defendants in cases that involved the charge of conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding.

 

But prosecutors had argued in response that using the median time as a benchmark was misleading because it included the time it takes for jury selection, trial, verdict and several months of sentencing deliberation, rather than just the duration of pre-trial proceedings.

 

The judge set a trial for 4 March 2024 – hewing to the government’s January 2024 trial date request – explaining that she agreed that the Trump legal team’s statistics were “misleading” adding that one of the cited cases was one she is currently overseeing and delayed because of Covid-19 issues which didn’t apply to Trump.

 

The date means Trump will be in the federal courthouse in Washington starting the day before Super Tuesday of the Republican primaries. Chutkan reiterated that Trump, like any other criminal defendant, would have to “make the trial date work regardless of his schedule”.

 

At the hearing, Chutkan said that to make her determination she would instead consider the volume of discovery materials prosecutors were turning over to the defense and what a reasonable time would be for Trump’s lawyers to review the 12m pages of evidence.

 

The judge also explained that the Speedy Trial Act, which requires criminal cases to go to trial within 70 days of indictment, exists to protect not just Trump but the public interest in ensuring the timely administration of justice.

 

The theme of Chutkan’s questioning of Trump’s lead lawyer, John Lauro, repeatedly returned to her contention that he did not have to read every one of the 12m pages anew because many of the documents were duplicative and the key facts were made public by the House January 6 select committee.

 

The judge said that she considered the government as having made a considerable effort to produce the discovery in an organized and keyword-searchable manner that should expedite their review. “You are not going to get two years,” she said.

 

Lauro objected to the judge’s characterization that the facts and legal theories were not new and emphasized that the Trump legal team needed extended time to review each of the pages, though he did not address his comments that the indictment was a regurgitation of the committee’s report.

 

The prosecutors seized on Lauro’s prior public comments to argue that the Trump legal team were not looking at the material for the first time. “When Mr Lauro appeared on multiple news programs and podcasts following the indictment, he described a number of defenses he plans to raise.”