# F Merrick Garland. (He won't be going after anyone) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 19, 2022, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190 "2022-07-19T06:39:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/501 "2023-06-10T14:19:03Z")
Here’s the cite that was posted: > **[2054. Synopsis Of Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA)](https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2054-synopsis-classified-information-procedures-act-cipa)** > > This is archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website. The information here may be outdated and links may no longer function. Please contact webmaster@usdoj.gov if you have any questions about the archive site. Here’s the part about the CSO: > An essential provision of a protective order is the appointment by the court of a Court Security Officer (CSO). The CSO is an employee of the Department’s Justice Management Division; however, the court’s appointment of a CSO makes that person an officer of the court. In that capacity, the CSO is responsible for assisting both parties and the court staff in obtaining security clearances (not required for the judge); in the proper handling and storage of classified information, and in operating the special communication equipment that must be used in dealing with classified information. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/502 "2023-06-10T14:21:22Z")
Does Trump have a lawyer now who has been given clearance? I’m pretty sure the answer is no. I have my doubts that happens quickly. Issues like this will delay this trial and others again and again. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/503 "2023-06-10T14:22:48Z")
Right, but your original point doesn’t stand. The talking head you heard was making the argument that Trump would have to find a lawyer willing to represent him who already has the clearance. That does not appear to be true. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/504 "2023-06-10T14:22:55Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > Here’s the cite that was posted: Where was that posted? There’s another thread just opened asking about such procedures. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/505 "2023-06-10T14:23:37Z")
Here’s the post: > [@FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence (August 8, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fbi-search-and-seizure-at-trumps-mar-a-lago-residence-08-08-22/969329/5429): > > I’m a bit skeptical of this one, because there’s a law that covers how classified evidence is handled at trial, generally: ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/506 "2023-06-10T14:25:43Z")
I’m not arguing that he needs a lawyer who currently has clearance, but such clearance has to be provided with sufficient time to prepare for trial, and that could take years under normal circumstances. Even with a special procedure I’m sure it will take some time, and not just any lawyer will qualify. And to be absolutely clear, I hope Jack Smith works his way through these issues and finds a way to proceed quickly on this. It is only the threat of his political actions that provides any uncertainty here. It would be a slam dunk against anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/507 "2023-06-10T14:35:40Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Trump is entitled to have a lawyer and be able to show that lawyer and discuss any evidence with that lawyer. If a guy is charged with stealing digital money then every single record of that money must be made available to him and his lawyer, and he must be able to present it to the jury as well. Do you expect the jury to simply to take the prosecutor’s word that there was some money, that it was stolen, and that the defendant did it? No, I’d expect them to take word of a computer security expert. The lawyer doesn’t know jack shit about computer security and, if you’re relying on his word about a hacking crime, then you’re an idiot because that guy’s a lawyer not an IT professional. I can imagine cases where it would be useful for a lawyer to know the content of classified documents - if those documents were, for example, reports on the activities of a soldier who was being charged. This isn’t that sort of case. The lawyer’s job is to know the law, not to be an expert in document verification. In this case, it should be sufficient to pick a person with clearance that the defendant trusts, to go look at the documents, and say whether they contain meaningful national secrets or not. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/508 "2023-06-10T15:07:57Z")
> [@](#): > > > [@EllisDee](#): > > > > Are you thinking that the defense will dispute whether the classified material is really classified? That’s the only reason I could see the jury needing to know the (allegedly!) classified information. > > Wouldn’t you? No, I wouldn’t. Not a lawyer, but I’m familiar with the maxim that says an attorney should never ask a question he doesn’t already know the answer to. If we stipulate that every sane attorney involved knows damn well that the classifications asserted are accurate, why in the world would a defense attorney pose some form of the question, “Hey, how do we even know all this stuff is classified or related to national security? For all we know this stuff is a bunch of magazines.” As noted, the government has lots of experience dealing with criminal charges related to classified info, and I have no doubt they’d be able to provide the well-supported response to the prior question, leaving a jury shaking their heads over a flailing defense. Shorter answer: Sure you want to introduce any degree of doubt you can. This approach does just the opposite. ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/509 "2023-06-10T15:32:07Z")
Also keep in mind that the actual classified material itself may only be summarized. As a quick and simple example, imagine there is a classified document containing “nuclear code ht8r46-goyfs5-e5hjtsd-1h6g.” At trial, it’s pretty likely that that classified document would be entered into evidence as “document containing valid nuclear code.” Nobody needs to know the actual code, or even the format of the code. They only need to know that it is a code. A court appointed security officer would affirm that that is the case. The jury doesn’t need security clearance for nuclear codes to hear the case, and the lawyers don’t need clearance to argue the case. If a lawyer did try to argue “But is that _really_ a valid nuclear code? How do we know?” they’d be laughed out of court. So no, I don’t think a defense lawyer would try and dispute whether or not the documents were actually classified. ---
**Author:** ![OttoDaFe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ottodafe/32/356_2.png) [@OttoDaFe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OttoDaFe)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/510 "2023-06-10T16:31:54Z")
Someone please correct me if I’m off base — wouldn’t be the first time — but more than once I’ve heard the punditerati assert that for the first 31 counts the classification of the documents, while not exactly irrelevant, is secondary to their nature. That is, if they have to do with national defense (and I would presume that to be the case with any document dealing with nuclear capabilities), Trump is in violation of the Espionage Act by retaining them whether or not he used his Very Good Brain™ to declassify them. Could someone more knowledgeable comment or clarify (or debunk)? ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/511 "2023-06-10T16:50:11Z")
Wouldn’t the documents have some sort of document number on them? I would think that there is a record saying this is Top Secret, this is Classified, this is defense information etc. Why would anyone have to read them for this trial to go forward. Now of course, those with proper clearance are going to need to see them. If for no other reason than to get a handle on what may have been leaked. ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/512 "2023-06-10T16:58:46Z")
> National defense information in general is protected by the Espionage Act,21 18 U.S.C. §§ 793–798, while other types of relevant information are covered elsewhere. Some provisions apply only to government employees or others who have authorized access to sensitive government information, but the following provisions apply to all persons. 18 U.S.C. § 793 prohibits the gathering, transmitting, or receipt of defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign nation. Violators are subject to a fine or up to 10 years imprisonment, or both, as are those who conspire to violate the statute. Persons who possess defense information that they have reason to know could be used to harm the national security, whether the access is authorized or unauthorized, and who disclose that information to any person not entitled to receive it, or who fail to surrender the information to an officer of the United States, are subject to the same penalty. Although it is not necessary that the information be classified by a government agency, the courts seem to give deference to the executive determination of what constitutes “defense information.” Information that is made available by the government to the public is not covered under the prohibition, however, because public availability of such information negates the bad-faith intent requirement. On the other hand, classified documents remain within the ambit of the statute even if information contained therein is made public by an unauthorized leak. [**SOURCE – 24pp PDF**](https://www.dodig.mil/Portals/48/Documents/Programs/Whistleblower/2010_1206_CRS_Criminal_Prohibitions_Defense_Information.pdf?ver=2017-04-27-105018-560) ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/513 "2023-06-10T17:20:04Z")
> [@OttoDaFe](#): > > That is, if they have to do with national defense (and I would presume that to be the case with any document dealing with nuclear capabilities), Trump is in violation of the Espionage Act by retaining them whether or not he used his Very Good Brain™ to declassify them. Could someone more knowledgeable comment or clarify (or debunk)? The Atomic Energy Act says: > [@](#): > > (1) The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security. > > (2) Whoever, lawfully or unlawfully, having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with, any document, writing, sketch, photography, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information involving or incorporating restricted data – > > (a) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the foregoing, with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for life, or by imprisonment for any term of years or a fine of not more than $100,000 or both; > > (b) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the foregoing, with reason to believe such data will be utilized to injure the United States or to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $50,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both. Maybe there’s some case law that narrows down what is and isn’t covered by this. I know, for example, that Fogbank was an atomic secret - so secret that we forgot how to make it. But likewise, I can go to the Internet and look up which countries have nuclear weapons and which ones don’t, and none of the websites who are publishing that data are in any imminent threat of being hauled in to the slammer. My sense would be that a document with the location of US nuclear missile silos would fall under the “immutably secret” heading. Whether a map of believed Iranian nuclear test sites would be, I couldn’t say. Whether it would be criminal to show a document on the production of Fogbank to Kid Rock, I also couldn’t say. He’s not a foreign national and there’s no reason to think that Kid Rock would do anything to harm the USA. But it’s also a clear and obvious act of malignant negligence to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/514 "2023-06-10T17:38:10Z")
And, here’s the (relevant part of the) Espionage Act: > [@](#): > > (d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, wilfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or > > (e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. Now, again, this shouldn’t necessarily be read at face value. I can go to the Internet and look up a list of US military bases and their locations. There is a parameter on what falls under the act and what doesn’t. As practiced until now, as I understand it, anything declassified or leaked to the press is considered exempt from this law, post-publication. A journalist, releasing information that was given to him by a whistleblower is protected. A Wikipedia editor, taking the information from the news and putting it into her encyclopedia entry, is protected. However, the person who leaked the information - if tracked down - can still be prosecuted for the leak. But, likewise, a President, in office, can declassify anything (that’s not a nuclear secret). He can go on TV and admit that we’ve got a mole in the North Korean government (if we did), and that would be completely above board. Again, that’s while he is still in office. If Trump did, indeed, declassify the documents in his last moments of still being the President then there would be a defense. But we would need more than his word for that - and especially when we have witnesses who say that he told them that he couldn’t, legally, show them his documents because they were still secret. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/515 "2023-06-10T17:43:04Z")
I should note that they are not charging Trump under the Atomic Energy Act. I’m just answering the question that was asked. That probably answers some of the questions I had. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2023, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/516 "2023-06-10T20:27:06Z")
There have been a dozen prosecutions for mishandling classified documents since 2005. > **[Who goes to jail over classified docs – and who doesn’t?](https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2023/0213/Who-goes-to-jail-over-classified-docs-and-who-doesn-t)** > > Some experts say higher-level officials are less likely to be prosecuted for mishandling secret information. Others argue it all depends on the details of the case. Lots of different types of cases. > **[Trump may be a special case, but others have paid for mishandling classified...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-classified-intel-convictions-1.6549346)** > > As the fallout from the removal of potentially classified documents from Donald Trump's Florida home plays out, here's a look at some recent cases where individuals in and connected to the U.S. government have been convicted for possessing or passing... Cases do take a long time from start to finish, which is why the DoJ is trying to hurry this one through before the election. I see nothing in previous cases that involve shenanigans about what a classified document is or who can look at what. There are procedures in place that already give judges guidance. Trump _might_ try stalling. The lawyers _might_ get creative. The judge _may_ be derelict in her duty. Anything is possible. But the indictment already lays out the classified nature of the documents with their precise classifications. (I presume that those who need to know will be given the publicly redacted information.) Any lawyer willing to defend Trump will know all this. The documents themselves are mere tokens at this point. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2023, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/517 "2023-06-11T00:02:58Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The documents themselves are mere tokens at this point. I.e., MacGuffins? ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2023, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/518 "2023-06-11T00:16:23Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > … Cannon is one of the judges in that district. The case was assigned _randomly_ to her, just like all the other cases that get filed in that district. > > There was no engineering. There apparently WAS engineering the first time Trump’s lawyers secured Cannon as judge in the Mar-a-Lago case: > [@](#): > > …A review of court logs by The Daily Beast indicated that Trump’s lawyers managed to **overcome the local court district’s random judicial assignment “wheel” and engaged in what’s known as forum shopping by timing the lawsuit in order to get her on the case** —a fact that was later confirmed by a person familiar with the situation. … It would appear that the judicial assignment wheel _can_ be gamed. > > [@Moriarty](#): > > > [@Sherrerd](#): > > > > to take advantage of Florida’s “rocket docket” system, which might mean the trial could at least _start_ sometime before the 11/24 election. There’s no such system. All cases at the federal level operate under the same federal laws regarding scheduling a case for trial. [/quote] Federal laws, sure. But you appear to be misinformed about the district in question: > [@](#): > > …the Southern District of Florida, is known to be a rocket docket. They move cases quickly. … > > [@](#): > > JUN 8 20239:12 PM EDT > > Trump documents case could move quickly through ‘rocket docket’ > > Trump’s criminal case could move quickly through federal court in Miami, which in recent years has been part of one of the nation’s fastest civil trial courts. > > That’s because the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida was the third-fastest civil trial court of the 94 federal district courts in 2021, according to Law360, which cited data from the U.S. Courts’ Caseload Statistics Data Tables page. … > Citation 1: > **[Guess Which Judge Has Been Assigned to Trump’s Docs Case](https://news.yahoo.com/guess-judge-assigned-trump-docs-140256969.html)** > > The same MAGA-friendly judge who went out of her way to slow down the FBI’s probe could now be responsible for sentencing the man who appointed her. Citation 2: > **[Takeaways from Trump indictment in Jack Smith classified docs probe](https://www.msnbc.com/trump-investigation/blog/trump-classified-documents-indictment-doj-investigation-live-updates-rcna84342)** > > The latest news and live updates on the Trump classified document probe conducted by DOJ special counsel prosecutor Jack Smith. Citation 3: > **[Trump indictment live updates: Special counsel describes gravity of alleged...](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/08/trump-indicted-live-updates.html)** > > Former President Donald Trump has been indicted on federal charges in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2023, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/519 "2023-06-11T00:24:36Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Federal laws, sure. But you appear to be misinformed about the district in question: > > > [@](#): > > > > …the Southern District of Florida, is known to be a rocket docket. They move cases quickly. … > > > [@](#): > > > > JUN 8 20239:12 PM EDT > > > > Trump documents case could move quickly through ‘rocket docket’ > > > > Trump’s criminal case could move quickly through federal court in Miami, which in recent years has been part of one of the nation’s fastest civil trial courts. > > > > That’s because the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida was the third-fastest civil trial court of the 94 federal district courts in 2021, according to Law360, which cited data from the U.S. Courts’ Caseload Statistics Data Tables page. … You see that word “civil”? We aren’t in civil court. This is criminal court. It’s not a rocket docket. A year is about the length for any case to go to trial. Civil cases, meanwhile, sometimes _do_ languish for years. That’s why the concept of a “rocket docket” makes sense in that context. (The only real exception I can think of for this criminal case would be if this trial was postponed so as to not coincide with the New York trial, but I don’t think either will overlap). ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2023, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190/520 "2023-06-11T00:33:19Z")
Correct, the citation uses a count of _civil_ cases in its statistics about the speed of movement of cases in that federal district (in comparison with others). Yet over 95,000 citations for “Trump” and “rocket docket” are available to you to show you that the Southern District of Florida DOES have a reputation for speedy movement of criminal cases, too. [https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+"rocket+Docket"&lr=&safe=active&as\_qdr=all&ei=ZhWFZJzeE5Gz5NoPyoG86AI&ved=0ahUKEwicqaKO-7n\_AhWRGVkFHcoADy0Q4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=Trump+"rocket+Docket"&gs\_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzoKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzoICAAQCBAHEB46CAgAEIoFEIYDOgsIABCABBCxAxCDAToECAAQAzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEAcQHjoKCAAQCBAHEB4QDzoFCAAQogQ6CAgAEIkFEKIESgQIQRgAUMgIWMkfYNQiaAFwAXgAgAF3iAHGCZIBAzQuOJgBAKABAcABAcgBBA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp](https://www.google.com/search?q=Trump+%22rocket+Docket%22&lr=&safe=active&as_qdr=all&ei=ZhWFZJzeE5Gz5NoPyoG86AI&ved=0ahUKEwicqaKO-7n_AhWRGVkFHcoADy0Q4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=Trump+%22rocket+Docket%22&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzoKCAAQRxDWBBCwAzoICAAQCBAHEB46CAgAEIoFEIYDOgsIABCABBCxAxCDAToECAAQAzoFCAAQgAQ6BggAEAcQHjoKCAAQCBAHEB4QDzoFCAAQogQ6CAgAEIkFEKIESgQIQRgAUMgIWMkfYNQiaAFwAXgAgAF3iAHGCZIBAzQuOJgBAKABAcABAcgBBA&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) Here’s one: > [@](#): > > … Walter Norkin, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of Florida, explains why that might be notable. > > “The Southern District of Florida is one of the few districts in the country that operates under a ‘rocket docket’ and, in distinction from the District of Columbia, you can expect a criminal case to be resolved within six months of an indictment issuing,” Norkin told ABC News. “The judges in the Southern District of Florida adhere very strictly to the Speedy Trial clock, which, with limited exceptions, requires trial or conviction to occur within 70 days.” … > **[Trump charged in 'rocket docket' court -- and why that could matter](https://www.goodmorningamerica.com/Politics/live-updates/trump-indictment-99913217/trump-charged-in-rocket-docket-court--and-why-that-could-matter-99950418?offset=13)** > > Updates on former President Donald Trump's federal indictment in classified documents investigation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/f-merrick-garland-he-wont-be-going-after-anyone/968190.md?page=27)