U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan faces a critical decision in the federal election subversion case against former President Donald Trump.
According to Newsweek, CNN's senior legal analyst Elie Honig suggests that Chutkan could decide based on written briefs or hold a hearing with live testimony.
The case, which has been delayed for months due to a Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, saw new developments on Wednesday when federal prosecutors filed a revised indictment against Trump. The charges remain the same as those originally filed in August 2023 but have been adjusted to align with the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity.
Both parties in the case submitted a joint status report late Friday, outlining their respective views on how the case should proceed. Trump's defense team proposed a schedule that would extend the case well into 2025, effectively pushing any potential trial beyond the November presidential election. They also indicated plans to file motions to dismiss the indictment on various grounds, including challenging the appointment of the special counsel.
In contrast, Smith's team emphasized the need to expedite Chutkan's review of how the Supreme Court's immunity ruling impacts the indictment against Trump. While they did not propose a specific schedule, prosecutors suggested that their "briefing schedule" could run concurrently with Chutkan's consideration of the immunity ruling.
The conflicting proposals highlight the complex nature of the case and the challenges facing Judge Chutkan as she determines the next steps.
According to Honig, Judge Chutkan has two primary options for proceeding with the case. He explained these options during an appearance on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
We'll do it on the paper,' meaning both parties, you give me detailed briefs, you tell me what you think the evidence is and why you think it should be in or out, and I'll decide based on the paper submissions.
The legal analyst then described the second option:
The other, more dynamic option...is the judge could say, 'we need to have a hearing.' I need to hear from some live witnesses, bring them in here, and all assess the testimony that way. So I think that's the big turning point we're looking at now.
Legal experts have raised concerns about the potential implications of Smith's decision to file a new indictment. Paul DerOhannesian, an attorney based in Albany, New York, suggested that this move could lead to lengthy litigation and potentially another trip to the Supreme Court without any resolution before the presidential election.
The revised indictment against former President Trump maintains most of its original allegations, with only the removal of claims explicitly ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court. Legal experts, including DerOhannesian, note that this development necessitates additional court sessions and scrutiny. The primary focus of these proceedings will be to assess whether presidential immunity shields the remaining actions and communications outlined in the indictment.
Some experts have even expressed doubt about the viability of the case moving forward. Syracuse University law professor Greg Germain believes that the election subversion case may be "dead" following the new indictment and the Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity.
Judge Chutkan has scheduled a hearing for September 5 to discuss the joint status report and determine the next steps in the case. This hearing will be crucial in shaping the trajectory of the proceedings and potentially setting a timeline for future actions.
The outcome of this decision could have far-reaching consequences, not only for the legal case against Trump but also for the broader political landscape as the 2024 presidential election approaches. The complex interplay between legal proceedings and political considerations continues to add layers of complexity to an already unprecedented situation in American politics and jurisprudence.
