In a court filing, prosecutors wrote, “A January 2 trial date would vindicate the public’s strong interest in a speedy trial — an interest guaranteed by the Constitution and federal law in all cases, but of particular significance here, where the defendant, a former president, is charged with conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes.”
Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, pleaded not guilty in Washington last week to the four counts against him in the case.
The week’s rapid-fire developments underscore how aggressively both sides are contesting how quickly the case moves to trial. Smith’s team seeks “a speedy trial,” he has said, a result that could ease concerns that the prosecution could affect next year’s presidential election. Trump’s defense has urged a slower pace, arguing unsuccessfully in a separate special counsel prosecution in Florida that the trial should come after the November 2024 vote.
Speaking after his round Thursday in the LIV Golf pro-am tournament at his course in Bedminster, N.J., Trump said: “The trials should be after the election. Because this is just election interference. … This is an indictment set up by crooked Joe Biden. … This was an indictment that was set up by a political opponent.”
Smith’s proposed date falls before the busiest month of next year’s front-loaded primary calendar. Only four states so far have set caucus or primary dates in January and February, with a small number still finalizing early dates in hopes of playing a greater influence in the outcome. More than half — 26 states and counting — are expected to select party nominees in March, with the rest following in April, May and early June.
Legal analysts say the race to trial is a useful lens to interpret each side’s moves, including Smith’s decision to seek a streamlined indictment on Aug. 1 against Trump alone, increasing the chances of a trial before the election. But others cautioned that Chutkan and courts are acting independently, mindful that Trump faces a series of trials next year, including one set for May by U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon in Florida on special counsel criminal charges of allegedly mishandling classified papers and obstruction after leaving office.
“Although it seems that trials in both cases can be completed before November 2024, I think a judge of integrity would tell you that the dates of nominating conventions and elections are irrelevant to their consideration,” said Barbara McQuade, a former federal prosecutor and University of Michigan law professor. “Both judges must balance the public’s right to a speedy trial with Trump’s right to due process.”
Special counsel prosecutors originally sought a December 2023 trial date before Cannon, but she split the difference after Trump’s defense warned that moving that fast “would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Potentially foreshadowing their pitch in arguments to Chutkan, Trump’s attorneys Todd Blanche and John Lauro argued unsuccessfully to Cannon that holding a trial during the election contest would be unfair to Trump, limit his ability to campaign, and add to the burden of preparing for two other trials he is facing: an unrelated criminal trial in Manhattan in March, and a civil trial, also in New York, scheduled to begin in October, over fraud allegations leveled by the state’s attorney general.
Cannon’s ruling implicitly rejected those claims. Separately, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — whose office is prosecuting Trump on state charges of falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments during the 2016 election — has said he is open to letting federal prosecutors go first and yielding the March slot.
In Thursday’s filing, prosecutors estimated that the government’s case “will take no longer than four to six weeks.” They proposed briefing expected motions to dismiss charges or challenge the indictment by Halloween, exclude evidence by Thanksgiving, and begin and finish jury selection before Christmas, in time for opening statements immediately after New Year’s Day 2024.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Molly Gaston argued that the proposal would give Trump’s defense two months from indictment to make legal arguments and up to five months to review evidence in the case, which the government said it expects to substantially turn over before Aug. 28.
“This Court — like federal courts throughout the nation — can and will ensure that the defendant receives both a fair and speedy trial,” Gaston wrote. She said that under both the Constitution’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and federal law, “the right to a timely trial is vested in the public, not just in the defendant.”
“It is difficult to imagine a public interest stronger than the one in this case,” she concluded. “Trial in this case is clearly a matter of public importance, which merits in favor of a prompt resolution.”
This story will be updated.