Judge Aileen Cannon (left) participated in a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight nomination hearing on July 29, 2020 (U.S. Senate via AP). Special counsel Jack Smith (right) addressed the indictment of former President Donald Trump on August 1, 2023, at a Department of Justice office in Washington.
Donald Trump’s defense lawyers have been granted additional time to respond to important pretrial matters. The special counsel’s objection, labeling the request as “unreasonable,” was disregarded by the judge overseeing the case at Mar-a-Lago.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a stickler for local rules like word count, clearly did not accept special counsel Jack Smith’s argument that the Trump team’s request for an additional 10 days was “unreasonable” under the local rules.
On Monday, the Trump defense team requested additional time to address special counsel Smith’s pretrial motions regarding discovery and the “scope of the prosecution team” before the scheduled hearing on Thursday, March 14. The defense cited travel obligations and the need to prepare for Trump’s upcoming criminal trial in New York, which is set to commence on March 25, as reasons for requiring an extension. This request applies to all pending motions, except for those pertaining to the defense’s challenges on the Presidential Records Act and Espionage Act based on “unconstitutional vagueness.”
‘Trump Employee 5′ reveals identity and speaks out after witnessing the shock of Judge Jack Smith when threatened with naming witnesses at Mar-a-Lago.
The defense team pointed out the New York trial date as a reason for requesting an extension. They also requested to postpone the trial until after the U.S. Supreme Court makes a ruling on Trump’s “presidential immunity” case. It is worth mentioning that this case will not be argued for another month or so.
In his opposition filing, Smith appeared to express some annoyance that the motion to adjourn was not mentioned in the Mar-a-Lago extension request document. However, this did not affect Cannon’s ruling. The special counsel noted in a footnote that the hush-money trial date had been set since 2022 and also informed Cannon that Trump had requested an adjournment in the New York trial.
Smith argued that it is unreasonable to grant the defense an extension of time that exceeds twice the allotted time stated in the Local Rule. He pointed out that the briefing schedule has been established for months, and it is only now, on the eve of the reply deadline, that the defense is raising concerns about needing more time. Smith emphasized that the defense has been aware of the circumstances throughout the proceedings, including the trial date in New York which has been set since 2022 and the availability of evidence that Nauta and De Oliveira will inspect tomorrow, as it was provided to them by the Government during discovery.
Smith also highlighted that Nauta failed to explain how any questions about grand jury practice in the District of Columbia could impact his reply briefing, and why he chose to seek this information only at this late stage. Additionally, Smith argued that the defense’s need to travel to Florida for a hearing on Thursday is not unique to their team and should not be a reason for such a significant delay. Therefore, Smith concluded by urging the Court to deny the defendants’ motion.
The defendants’ motion was not denied by the judge.
The judge issued a ruling on Monday, stating that the defendants are required to file replies to their pretrial Motions by March 24, 2024. However, the judge did note that there is an exception for replies in support of Motion 325, which argues against the Espionage Act’s “unconstitutional vagueness,” and Motion 327, which pertains to the Presidential Records Act.
