Judge Aileen Cannon, pictured on the left, participated in a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight nomination hearing on July 29, 2020 (U.S. Senate via AP). On the right, special counsel Jack Smith discusses the indictment of former President Donald Trump on August 1, 2023, at a Department of Justice office in Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin).
Donald Trump’s defense lawyers have been granted additional time to respond to key pretrial issues. This decision was made by the judge in the Mar-a-Lago case, who dismissed the special counsel’s claim that the request for an extension was “unreasonable.”
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a stickler for local rules like word count, did not agree with special counsel Jack Smith’s argument that the Trump team’s request for an extra 10 days was “unreasonable” under the local rules.
Related Coverage:
On Monday, the Trump defense team requested additional time to address the pretrial motions filed by special counsel Smith. These motions pertain to discovery and the “scope of the prosecution team” and are due by Thursday, March 14, when a hearing is scheduled. The defense cited various reasons for needing an extension, including travel constraints and the preparation required for Trump’s upcoming criminal trial in New York, set to commence on March 25. They specifically mentioned that this extension request applies to pending motions unrelated to the defense’s challenges regarding the Presidential Records Act and Espionage Act, which question their “unconstitutional vagueness.”
According to Law&Crime, the defense has cited the New York trial date as one of the reasons for requesting an extension. They have also requested to adjourn the trial until after the U.S. Supreme Court makes a ruling in Trump’s “presidential immunity” case. It is important to note that this case will not be argued for another month or so.
Smith expressed some subtle frustration in his opposition filing regarding the absence of the motion to adjourn in the Mar-a-Lago extension request document. However, this did not influence Cannon’s ruling. The special counsel highlighted in a footnote that the trial date for the hush-money case had been set since 2022 and also mentioned that Trump had sought to adjourn the trial in New York.
Smith argued that it is unreasonable to grant an extension of time that exceeds twice the allotted time stated in the Local Rule. He pointed out that the briefing schedule has been in place for months, and it is only now, on the eve of the reply deadline, that the defense is requesting more time. Smith emphasized that the defense has been aware of the circumstances surrounding their motions throughout the entire process, including the trial date in New York since 2022 and the availability of evidence that Nauta and De Oliveira will inspect tomorrow. Furthermore, Smith questioned why Nauta waited until now to seek information regarding grand jury practice in the District of Columbia, as it has no bearing on his reply briefing. Smith also dismissed the defense’s argument about having to travel to Florida for a hearing on Thursday, stating that this is not a unique situation and should not be a cause for such a delay. In conclusion, Smith urged the Court to deny the defendants’ motion.
The defendants’ motion was not denied by the judge.
The judge later ruled on Monday that, except for the replies in support of 325 (Espionage Act ‘unconstitutional vagueness’) and 327 (Presidential Records Act), the defendants must file their replies to their pretrial motions by March 24, 2024.
A judge at Mar-a-Lago has granted an extension to the lawyers representing Donald Trump after Jack Smith labeled their request as “unreasonable.” Smith emphasized that the trial date for the New York hush-money case has been scheduled since 2022. This update was originally published on Law & Crime.
