Left: Judge Aileen Cannon (Senate Judiciary Committee via AP); Right: Donald Trump visits Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in July 2023 (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File)
Former President Donald Trump and his two co-defendants are once again asking the federal judge overseeing the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case to delay setting a trial date.
In a six-page motion filed late Friday, defense attorneys argued that despite a looming window to set the date of the trial, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon should put the kibosh on that timeline due to myriad pretrial motions and the sheer volume of discovery in the case.
Stylized as a “joint speedy trial report,” the filing from the 45th president — as well as Waltine Nauta, Trump’s longtime butler, and Carlos De Oliveira, Mar-a-Lago’s property manager — comes in response to a request from the court made earlier this week.
A federal law, the Speedy Trial Act, generally sets a 70-day window for a trial date to commence from the time an indictment is filed — with numerous exceptions and caveats. As the result of various delays in court, orders, and local rules, that window is set to open on May 20.
In the filing, the defense says the clock should continue to be tolled.
“Time would also continue to be tolled under the Speedy Trial Act while the Court considers the numerous pretrial motions still pending,” the motion reads.
Defense attorneys concede that two defense motions — to dismiss the indictment for constitutional vagueness and to dismiss the indictment under the terms of the Presidential Records Act (PRA) — have already been dispensed with. Still, the defense notes that at least five other defense motions are currently awaiting Cannon’s rulings.
The constitutional vagueness motion was denied in early March.
The PRA dismissal effort ended in a disguised victory for Trump — denied but with a substantial silver-lining that preserves a potential key defense during the eventual trial — just this week.
In the filing, the defense says a motion to compel discovery and several other pretrial motions filed under seal remains.
“Accordingly, these pending motions remain under advisement by the Court, and thus, time remains tolled under the Speedy Trial Act while the Court considers the Defendants’ motions,” the filing reads.
Trump’s attorneys also argue that unresolved discovery demands “continue to outweigh” the benefit of scheduling a trial soon.
“Defendants have sought countless additional records from the Special Counsel’s Office and have requested evidentiary and non-evidentiary hearings that may well result in the production of additional voluminous, and potentially classified, discovery,” the filing goes on. “By way of just one example, counsel for Mr. De Oliveira requested additional CCTV video from the Special Counsel’s Office, which still has not been resolved.”
And, the defense says, extant discovery already produced in the case should preclude any potential schedule coming into focus.
“Even were the Court to deny every discovery motion filed by the Defendants, the Special Counsel’s Office has now produced more than 682,000 records (excluding CCTV video), or more than 130,000 additional records since the Court last set a trial date in this matter,” the filing continues.
The additional delay, the defense argues, would allow the parties the necessary time to review the “voluminous discovery” in the “so complex” case, the filing says. The ex-president faces accusations of violating federal law by illegally retaining numerous allegedly classified documents and then attempting to cover up those efforts.
“The gravity of this prosecution cannot be understated,” the defense filing concludes. “As the stakeholders to this litigation wrestle with both novel and profound legal issues of utmost importance, it should be incumbent upon all to assure that the pursuit of justice remains paramount. Both the resolution of outstanding pretrial motions as well as a fulsome opportunity to digest the ever-increasing volume of discovery require and/or justify the continued tolling of time under the Speedy Trial Act.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
