Donald Trump has made a play in the case against him for mishandling documents in federal court in Florida. The former president is charged with dozens of felonies and faces, at age 77, what would be a life sentence for any conviction. A trial date of August 14 had been set. In a filing this week, Trump asked Judge Aileen Cannon to move the date forward. How far? Beyond the horizon. Can he win the case by winning the election? That’s his plan A – wait out Biden’s Department of Justice.
Donald Trump (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
No experienced legal commentator seemed to think the August schedule would likely be kept. Thanks to our constitution’s Sixth Amendment, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial…” Do they have the right to a lengthy delay? If Donald Trump wins back the presidency, he could pardon himself and cancel any prosecution.
How About Never?
Trump’s attorney Christopher Kise asked the judge to postpone the trial indefinitely. He petitioned Judge Cannon to remove the scheduled start date from the court’s calendar and not set a replacement. He asked her to deny Biden’s prosecutors their proposed calendar, which would have the trial begin in December of this year. And to “withdraw the current Order, and postpone initial consideration of any rescheduled trial date until after substantive motions have been presented and adjudicated.”
The courthouses would be empty if trials had to wait for defendants to satisfy all appealable issues. Speedy trials are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to protect us against government actors using the process as a punishment. There is a direct and fundamental threat to liberty if we would have to live for long stretches in jeopardy of a criminal conviction. The same can’t really be said for a speedy trial. What fundamental right could be threatened by the imposition of one? Perhaps if the government filed complex charges and gave only hours or days’ notice. That’s not the case here.
Orange Man Special
Trump says his case is unique, deserving of special consideration because of the issues involved, and that the law favors his position. Kise’s brief quotes the relevant federal law’s code of criminal procedure (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)) that judges should grant continuances if “the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” He wrote:
The Court now presides over a prosecution advanced by the administration of a sitting President against his chief political rival, himself a leading candidate for the Presidency of the United States. Therefore, a measured consideration and timeline that allows for a careful and complete review of the procedures that led to this indictment and the unprecedented legal issues presented herein best serves the interests of the Defendants and the public.
Jack Smith, Joe Biden and Merrick Garland’s prosecutor of choice to get Donald Trump, wants the trial pushed without delay. He objected to Mr. Trump’s aide and co-defendant Waltine Nauta’s separate request for a delay in a pre-trial conference. Nauta’s attorney will be at trial in Washington, D.C., during the scheduled hearing in Florida. He asked Judge Cannon for a continuance. Smith opposed the request, writing “An indefinite continuance is unnecessary, will inject additional delay in this case, and is contrary to the public interest.” He did not address the herd of elephants in the courthouse, that Trump, it seems, would not be prosecuted but for his political ambitions.
Perhaps Smith will file a rebuttal brief that attempts to deal with those issues seriously and beyond a conclusory statement about the public interest. The public is interested to know whether the president has used the FBI and the DOJ to eliminate the greatest threat to his holding onto power. Is it in their interest to see Trump’s trial delayed until who knows when? Judge Cannon will let us know when she decides.
