Sun Sentinel Palm Beach Edition
Justice Department urges judge not to postpone Trump’s trial
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department urged a judge Thursday to reject Donald Trump’s efforts to postpone his classified documents trial, saying there was no basis for an “open-ended” delay sought by his lawyers.
Federal prosecutors last month proposed a Dec. 11 trial for Trump, who is charged with 37 felony counts related to the mishandling of classified documents at his Mar-aLago estate, though the actual date will be up to the judge.
Trump’s lawyers countered this week with a request for a delay. They did not propose a specific date but said the case concerned novel legal issues, and proceeding with a trial within six months is “unreasonable” and would “result in a miscarriage of justice.”
On Thursday, prosecutors on special counsel Jack Smith’s team responded by asking U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to not postpone the trial beyond the December date they recommended.
They rejected the idea that any of the legal arguments the defense intends to raise requires postponement of the trial, saying they’ve already produced grand jury transcripts and unclassified witness statements. They said that in the next week, they will produce witness statements for interviews conducted through June 23, or two weeks after the indictment was returned.
Though the defense lawyers had said a continuance was necessary because they hadn’t yet received classified evidence in the case, prosecutors noted that as of Thursday, only two of the attorneys have submitted an application for a security clearance that would enable them to access such evidence.
Defense lawyers had also argued that Trump’s busy campaign schedule for the 2024 Republican nomination needed to be taken into account in scheduling a trial. But prosecutors said that, too, was not a basis for an indefinite delay.
“Many indicted defendants have demanding jobs that require a considerable amount of their time and energy, or a significant amount of travel,” they wrote.
The Justice Department also disputed the suggestion that an impartial jury could not be selected before the presidential election.
“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,” the prosecutors wrote.
“To be sure,” they added, “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.”