Trump heavily relied on the immunity decision, while also reusing arguments he recently made to get his Mar-a-Lago classified documents case dismissed.
WASHINGTON (CN) — Former President Donald Trump previewed his slew of legal arguments to end his long-paused election subversion criminal case in a joint legal filing with special counsel Jack Smith late Friday night.
Trump heavily cited the Supreme Court’s recent 6-3 decision that presidents are at least presumptively immune from prosecution for official acts taken while in office in the delayed joint status report, while promising a Sept. 30 deadline both his and Smith’s arguments for and against dismissal.
The former president argued U.S. District Tanya Chutkan should side with the high court’s conservative majority and determine much of the accused conduct in Smith’s recent superseding indictment should be determined official acts.
“If the court determines, as it should, that the special counsel cannot rebut the presumption that these acts are immune, binding law requires that the entire indictment be dismissed because the grand jury considered immunized evidence,” the former president wrote.
However, Trump maintained that even if the Barack Obama appointee decided some conduct was unofficial, and therefore criminally liable, Smith should have a limited amount of evidence he could use or be found wrongfully appointed, citing Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion in the immunity decision.
Trump also argued that his two obstruction charges should be dismissed, pointing to Fischer v. U.S., where the justices ruled 6-3 that the Justice Department’s staple charge — obstruction of an official proceeding — should only apply to explicit document destruction in the Capitol riot prosecutions.
Those additional motions would each require briefing, which Trump’s lawyers suggested could run until the week of Jan. 27, 2025, just days after the potential inauguration of the former president, or his democratic opponent Vice President Kamala Harris. If Trump is not elected, his lawyers hinted to “additional proceedings” taking place in the Spring or Fall of 2025.
Alternatively, Smith urged Chutkan to move forward with an official v. unofficial acts test, but left the scheduling up to her, leaving that up to her discretion.
“The government’s proposed brief would provide the defendant and the court with detailed information regarding the ‘content, form, and context,’ of the defendant’s conduct, distinguish his private electioneering activity from official action, and rebut the presumption of immunity as to any conduct that the court may deem official,” Smith wrote.
Smith, who recently appealed Trump-appointee U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to dismiss his parallel classified documents in South Florida, suggested that Trump make his additional legal arguments in his primary immunity brief.
The joint status report was the first real update in the case since the Supreme Court’s July 1 decision, and the first activity on the docket since the case was paused pending the immunity appeals in December 2023.
Friday’s filing comes three days after Smith brought a second indictment against Trump, narrowly tailored to comply with the Supreme Court’s July ruling granting Trump immunity from prosecution for certain official acts.
That superseding indictment maintained the same four charges Smith initially levied in August 2023, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy against the right to vote and have one’s vote be counted, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and outright obstruction.
By bringing a revised indictment, Smith showed his intent to continue marching the case forward in one way or another, even as the election draws closer, the results of which will make or break any chance of Trump facing a jury for his attempts to overturn his prior electoral defeat.
Smith likely intends for determinations in that case to be made in the remaining 66 days before the presidential election on Nov. 5, highlighting a 1991 Supreme Court case Hunter v. Bryant, which “stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.”
The two parties did not agree on much throughout the 10-page filing, noting in a two-paragraph section labeled “Joint Position” their “differing views,” besides asking that Chutkan pause the clock in the case from Aug. 2 to the next deadline she sets.
Chutkan had scheduled the initial hearing since receiving the case’s mandate from the Supreme Court for Sept. 5, and will likely address the parties scheduling arguments then.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
إرسال تعليق