Judge Tanya Chutkan sided with special counsel Jack Smith Tuesday, allowing him to file a lengthy brief including evidence against Trump ahead of the election.
Trump’s attorneys wrote Monday that Smith’s brief would “drive public opinion rather than justice,” opposing prosecutors’ latest request to submit an estimated 180-page motion that exceeds the normal filing limit. Earlier this month, Chutkan set a schedule that gave Smith the first stab at addressing the Supreme Court’s July ruling on presidential immunity over objections from Trump’s attorneys.
“Allowing a brief from the Government is not ‘contrary to law procedure, and custom,’ as Defendant claims, (citing no authority); it is simply how litigation works,” Chutkan wrote in her Tuesday order. “Each side presents arguments and proffers evidence on disputed issues—here, whether Defendant’s charged conduct involved official acts and receives immunity.”
Smith’s brief, which will lay out prosecutors’ argument explaining why presidential immunity does not cover the superseding indictment, is due Thursday.
Chutkan rejected each of Trump’s arguments against Smith’s request, writing that the government’s request for a longer brief to resolve immunity issues more efficiently “is reason enough to grant the motion.” (RELATED: Judge Chutkan Acknowledges She Is ‘Risking Reversal’ No Matter How She Rules In Trump Case)
NEW YORK, NEW YORK – MAY 30: Former U.S. President Donald Trump appears in court for his hush money trial at Manhattan Criminal Court on May 30, 2024 in New York City. Judge Juan Merchan gave the jury instructions, and deliberations are entering their second day. The former president faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first of his criminal cases to go to trial. (Photo by Steven Hirsch-Pool/Getty Images)
“Defendant’s concern with the political consequences of these proceedings does not bear on the pretrial schedule,” Chutkan wrote.
Trump’s attorneys argued the filing was improper while Trump remains under a gag order. Chutakn wrote that their claim “mischaracterizes the court’s order, and even so identifies potential political consequences rather than legal prejudice.”
Chutkan also declined to address the argument that the Department of Justice violated its policy barring prosecutors from timing actions “for the purpose of affecting any election.”
“The court need not address the substance of those claims,” Chutkan wrote. “Defendant does not explain how those putative violations cause him legal prejudice in this case, nor how this court is bound by or has jurisdiction to enforce Department of Justice policy.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
Read the full article here
