The return of Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 indictment to U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan triggered a flurry of activity in the previously dormant case, reviving a high-stakes court battle after a series of legal victories for the former president.
The case is back in Chutkan’s hands after the Supreme Court formally sent the case back to the lower courts after handing Trump a victory by ruling that, as a former president, he retains broad immunity from criminal prosecution.
This ends a break of about eight months in the case, and Chutkan has made it clear that the hiatus is over.
Just hours after the case was returned on Friday, she scheduled a conference for Aug. 16 to chart a course for dealing with numerous unresolved issues in the case — likely starting a discussion about holding what some considered a mini- judgment.
And on Saturday, she ruled against Trump in a pending attempt to dismiss the case, ruling that he failed to demonstrate any prosecutorial bias on the part of special counsel Jack Smith in bringing the case.
“She certainly signaled, with her quick disposition of the prosecution’s selected motion, with the establishment of a quick briefing schedule and a quick hearing on the 16th, that she wants to keep things moving, and that’s how the justice system is supposed to work. ,” said Norm Eisen. , who served as an adviser to Democrats on Trump’s first impeachment, told The Hill.
In his order, Chutkan wrote that Trump again presented an “improper restructuring” of the charges against him and determined that the former president offered “no meaningful evidence” that he was unfairly targeted.
Chutkan has often offered a contrast to Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the Florida-based Trump documents case.
She more quickly resolved a number of outstanding issues in the Jan. 6 case, while Cannon’s Mar-a-Lago case dragged on with long hearings on Trump’s remote motions.
And although Cannon agreed to dismiss the Trump documents case, Chutkan rejected his effort to do so with claims of immunity, setting off the battle that has now boomeranged back to his court.
Following the high court ruling, Chutkan is now tasked with determining what conduct in Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election is not immune from lawsuits.
The public will first see Smith’s thinking on the matter on Aug. 9, when Chutkan ordered both sides to jointly present their vision for how they think the case should proceed.
It’s possible that Smith will request an evidentiary hearing — something some Trump critics see as a “mini-trial” that would allow the public to learn more about the evidence prosecutors plan to offer at trial.
“There is no reason for further delay here. It is already outrageous that the case has been delayed for so long. It was supposed to go to trial in March. We should have had a verdict a long time ago, so the least the judicial system can do is give us a mini-trial to – to some extent – expose the allegations and determine whether they are immune or not,” Eisen said.
“I think Judge Chutkan will ultimately rule that the majority, indeed the vast majority, of the indictment consists of allegations to which immunity does not apply.”
A Supreme Court ruling last month determined that former presidents are immune from prosecution for acts they perform in office that form part of their essential executive functions, while they are presumptively immune from all other official acts.
In doing so, they invoked a specific element of the charge, preventing the use of Trump’s pressure campaign on the Justice Department as the basis for any charges.
But it is now up to Chutkan to analyze the rest of the indictment and determine where else Trump can be protected from prosecution – and which elements of his plan to stay in power could still lead to his arrest.
This process could follow two paths – paper arguments or a hearing with live witness testimony.
For Trump’s critics, the evidentiary hearings with witnesses would be the closest the country can get to a pre-election trial of the former president for his conduct related to January 6th.
It’s an idea that Trump’s legal team has expressed opposition to.
Speaking with conservative radio show host Hugh Hewitt, Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche agreed when the host asked if Chutkan should “put all this off until after the election,” a question that arose in the wake of the assassination attempt on Trump. Trump.
“[There are] there are many others out there who want, still want, nothing more than to see President Trump fall before the election. And that’s not how we are as a country. This is not how the justice system should work. That’s not how it worked before. And we can still right this ship,” said Blanche.
“If you want to defeat President Trump, then take your message to the voters and tell them to vote. You’re not supposed to use the court system, and that’s what they did.”
Shan Wu, a former federal prosecutor and general counsel to former Attorney General Janet Reno, said there is a lot of “legal necessity” to hold an evidentiary hearing that has little to do with calls to hold Trump accountable before the election.
“In such an untested area of law – this is the first time that the trial court will have to try to apply this extremely confusing and ambiguous Supreme Court standard – it is really important to have a complete factual record – in terms of evidence with living witnesses that I was questioned – to establish a really good record on what will certainly be used in the future and how you should apply this immunity ruling,” Wu said.
“So for the first time, having a lower court having to apply this new ruling, I think legally it’s very important to have a hearing.”
Doing so, he said, also strengthens any decision by Chutkan, whose work will undoubtedly be reviewed by higher courts as Trump appeals his ruling.
If Chutkan made the decision based solely on legal documents, she “is entitled to less deference on appeal because appellate judges deal with the law and can second-guess the lower court,” Wu said.
“Since appellate courts do not hear from live witnesses – they judge their behavior, they do not observe how they react to cross-examination… appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, will be much more respectful of this type of testimony where the judge has had the opportunity to observe the witness and make your own credibility terminations. That kind of evidence really doesn’t get overturned on appeal.”
Time, however, can be a concern.
This hearing could last a few days, but it could also last longer, with Wu suggesting perhaps up to a few weeks.
These are details that might give Chutkan or even prosecutors some pause, as the Justice Department typically avoids filing charges two months before an election and something they would consider even if they sought a hearing.
But in some respects, Chutkan suggested he can’t consider the election when weighing how to proceed with Trump, noting he should treat him like any other citizen.
“She has already made clear that Trump will not be treated differently, nor should she be treated differently, than any other defendant in her court. Other defendants have jobs but have to appear in court,” Eisen said.
“We don’t have two legal systems in the United States, one for presidential candidates and one for everyone else.”
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
