First, the defendant cites the
median time from commencement to termination for jury trials of Section 371 charges—29.4
months—without explaining that this median time runs through the completion of sentencing, not
the beginning of trial. That means that it includes the time required for jury selection, trial,
verdict, and several months (or more) afterward before sentencing and final judgment. See https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/data_tables/jb_d10_0930.2022.pdf. The question
here is when it is appropriate to start trial in this case, and statistics regarding the length of time
from indictment to sentencing in other Section 371 cases have no bearing on that decision.
It all but ended with “Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!” in an atrocious French accent.
Dismiss utterly cherry-picked comps, remind them that it’s largely built out of their own goddamn information that they already have, ROFL-stomp their lack of time by pointing out their own stated vendor offers the needed services, dismiss their demands for clearance by pointing out they aren’t (likely) entering TS into the record, and then the final “butter won’t melt in their mouth” comeback of “if you have any reasonable requests, we’re happy to help. Here, have a couple of days to deal with your other crimin’ defense, we’ll be ready later that week”.
Indeed, as Smith’s rebuttal promptly points out. This is looking like the 2019 NE Patriots versus a pickup touch football team at the local park.
Second, the data cited by the defendant spans October 2021 through September 2022, when federal courts were pulling out of a backlog caused by COVID-19 closures. During that period, only 22 cases went to trial nationwide. This small and skewed sample provides no help to the Court in deciding an appropriate trial date.
This reminds me of aspects of my own job. Arguing with people on the internet can be frustrating, because they’re allowed to just use whatever bullshit arguments they want, and you can’t stop them.
But when your job has the force of law behind it? The conspiracy-theory minded just don’t know how to operate when you’re allowed to say that they’re legally full of shit, and that their bullshit argument is unpersuasive, and make that stick.
The judge in the dc case has set march 4th as the date for the dc trial. Both sides gave their arguments this morning. The judge said she would come back with a date. An hour later, march 4th.
Do you have a (non-video) link for that? I looked on CNN, but it’s very difficult to find anything in their ‘breaking news’. I did click on the link here…
In the hearing earlier Monday, Chutkan rejected trial dates proposed by both the Justice Department and Trump’s legal team.
Defense argued that 12.8 million pages of discovery is too much to review. Prosecution argued that only about 47,000 pages were actually pertinent. Then, Defense argued that without a thorough review of everything, this would turn into a show trial, not a speedy trial. “Mr. Trump is not above the law, but neither is he below the law,” Trump lawyer Lauro said.
My own view is that Prosecution is correct with “about 47,000” pages being relevant. Jack Smith seems to me to be very thorough, and likely to collect everything that is relevant no matter how remotely, so I’m sure that 12.8 million pages consists mainly of popular media stories from various sources—CNN, WaPo, NYT, even Fox, and others. Stuff that anybody who consumes news already knows anyway. Defense does not necessarily need to review such with a fine-toothed comb; it can gloss over them and spend time on the meatier stuff.
No, just that it may push back the New York trial. The prosecution in New York has stated publicly that he was willing to give way to the federal case.
CNN has been giving quotes from the judge. I have seen print as yet.
Just going on what CNN’s panel said orally a few moments ago …
The judge said (paraphrased) “A defendant’s first obligation is to the court, not to their personal or professional obligations.”
Sounds like Trump argued that this court date would interfere with his “professional obligation” to campaign. But the judge was having none of it. My guess, anyway.
Hope the trial date sticks. I had planned on retiring on March 1, so this would work out perfect.
I think this trial should take precedence over the other three. The documents case may be a slam dunk, but when you have a fangirl as judge then that puts that trial in doubt. The Georgia case may be strong and pretty much equally important, but that can wait for the DC trial to conclude.
