“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.”
[...]
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.
[...]
[Judge Chutkan] 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.
Guardian
I wonder how Trump's lawyers thought they would sneak that one by her.
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.
[Jack Smith] sat in the gallery behind the prosecution table which included Molly Gaston and John Windom.
[...]
He sat pretty much stone-faced during the entire hearing, stroking his beard now and then. He only nodded once, and that was when the judge said it was clear the DoJ had gone out of its way to prepare discovery for the defense. Officer Harry Dunn sat directly behind Jack Smith in the courtroom.
[...]
Jury selection will begin on March 4th, which alleviates the conflicting December 11th date recommended by DoJ that would have been the same date as an evidentiary hearing in the documents case, so that filing in FL should now be moot.
Mueller, She Wrote
No comments:
Post a Comment