The pre-trial proceedings in Donald Trump’s Florida criminal case are taking longer than expected, leading some legal experts to doubt that the case will go to trial this year. There are even concerns that the case may not go to trial at all.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, the Trump-appointed judge presiding over the case, has not yet set a trial date, despite conducting two lengthy hearings this month. The case involves allegations that the former president deliberately kept national security secrets after leaving office and obstructed government efforts to recover them.
According to the Associated Press, the judge in the case has not made a ruling on several defense motions to dismiss the case. The dispute over classified evidence has been ongoing for months, and there is still an unresolved request from Trump’s legal team to release the names of the government’s witnesses. Legal experts have raised concerns about the judge’s recent order regarding end-of-trial jury instructions. This order suggests that the judge is still considering a claim from Trump about his authority to possess certain documents, despite her previous skepticism.
The delays can be partly attributed to the frequent legal tactic employed by the presumptive GOP nominee to postpone his four criminal cases while he focuses on his 2024 presidential campaign. However, the Florida case has reached an unprecedented stage due to the limited number of substantial decisions made by the judge to move the case forward. This increases the likelihood that the trial may not take place before the November election.
According to Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, Judge Cannon is an unfavorable judge who consistently makes poor rulings and demonstrates a clear bias towards Trump.
Ever since she was assigned to Trump’s case last year, Judge Cannon, a former federal prosecutor who took on her role in 2020, has been under considerable scrutiny due to her limited experience on the bench.
According to David Schultz, a legal studies and political science professor at Hamline University, the fact that she appears to have “lost control of the trial” presents a bigger problem than Trump’s frequent delay tactics.
According to Schultz, the issue lies in the fact that Cannon has conducted multiple hearings but lacks clear instructions and appears to be disorganized. This, in Schultz’s opinion, is a rookie problem or a problem that stems from being relatively new to the role. He believes that Cannon lacks control over the courtroom, and Trump is exploiting this weakness. To highlight the contrast, Schultz mentions New York Judge Juan Merchan, who firmly set a trial date for Trump’s Manhattan criminal case and reprimanded his legal team for their attempt to delay proceedings.
Rahmani highlighted Cannon’s willingness to entertain every frivolous argument raised by Trump, including the search warrants executed at Mar-a-Lago. He referred to Cannon’s decision to appoint an independent arbiter to review the records seized by the FBI from the property in response to a lawsuit filed by Trump. However, a federal appeals court panel unanimously reversed Cannon’s appointment, stating that she had exceeded her authority.
According to Rahmani, the pre-trial discovery phase of the case is one of the reasons for its delay. This phase involves the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), which establishes guidelines for the disclosure and admission of classified material as evidence. Under CIPA, all parties involved in the case must have clearance to review the documents and can only access certain sensitive materials in a secure facility designated for this purpose.
Prosecutors have also sought “redacted versions” or summaries of the exhibits for jurors to ensure that the document’s intelligence information remains classified and is not disclosed to the public during trial, according to the expert.
Rahmani pointed out that these types of cases often involve a lengthy and unnecessary back-and-forth process, which only serves to further delay the resolution. He emphasized that Cannon bears a significant responsibility in addressing these procedural matters.
Special counsel Jack Smith and his team have consistently urged the judge to expedite the case, as reported by the AP. While they have refrained from explicitly mentioning the forthcoming election, they consistently emphasize the public’s desire for a swift resolution to the case. Additionally, they highlight the abundance of evidence, including surveillance video, a defense lawyer’s notes, and testimonies from close Trump associates, which they argue establishes the former president’s culpability.
Trump and his co-defendant, Walt Nauta, were arraigned in Miami last June. Both of them pleaded not guilty to all charges. Another co-defendant, Carlos De Oliveira, who was charged in July’s superseding indictment, also pleaded not guilty in mid-August after his first court appearance in late July.
According to Schultz, in cases like this, it is essential that the timeline from the defendants’ arraignment or initial court appearance to a trial does not exceed a year, and ideally, even less. Schultz emphasizes that this is crucial in order to uphold the defendant’s Constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.
Looking for a convenient way to stay updated on all the latest news and commentary from Salon? Look no further than our morning newsletter, Crash Course. Subscribe now to receive a daily wrap-up of everything you need to know.
According to Rahmani, if Trump loses in November, she doesn’t expect the case to go to trial until 2025 based on Cannon’s handling of the case. However, if Trump wins, the former federal prosecutor predicts that the case will be dismissed due to the Department of Justice’s “long-standing policy” against prosecuting sitting presidents.
Schultz remains optimistic about the possibility of the case going to trial before the year ends. Additionally, he believes there is still a chance for Cannon to expedite the process and schedule a trial in October, right before the election.
Cannon would have to take more control of the case and improve the scheduling to achieve this. According to Schultz, he needs to do a better job and quickly convene with the parties involved within the next three to four weeks. During this meeting, they should set a timeline for discovery and affidavits.
