bob wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 3:39 pm
Maybenaut wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 3:06 pm
NewMexGirl wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 2:20 pm
It is my IANAL understanding that the gag order appeal will not have an impact on progress in Chutkan’s courtroom, but what about the “advice of counsel” defense issue? Will this delay the start of the trial
I doubt it would cause any delay. Defendants are routinely required to state well in advance of trial if they plan on relying on special defenses so there won’t be any surprises at trial. There will be an opportunity for motions about the defense (whether it applies, whether the evidence in support is admissible, etc). But none of this is novel or unexpected - the judge takes all of this into consideration when setting the trial schedule.
Too also: The defendant certainly can
request a continuance, e.g., "Your Honor, I have so much homework now to do, there's no way I can be ready by the trial date you previously had set."
And if such a motion is made, I would expect this judge's ruling to be:
.
Two of Trump's motions to dismiss do have the potential for substantial delay, because they are subject to immediate interlocutory appeal, and the trial cannot be held until resolution of such appeals. These are the double jeopardy motion and the absolute criminal immunity motion. The government's opposition to Trump's motion to stay all proceedings has urged the court to decide both motions as soon as possible. ECF 142
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 42.0_4.pdf
The double jeopardy motion is extremely weak, and the government has requested that the court not just deny the motion but also make a finding that it is "frivolous," which would authorize the court to deny a stay of proceedings pending an interlocutory appeal of the motion's denial. See ECF 139.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 39.0_8.pdf
The absolute criminal immunity motion is a different story. It's flawed and full of holes, but the government does not contend that the court should make a finding of frivolousness, and all but concedes that an appeal from denial of the motion would to some extent stay proceedings in the district court.
To prevent the defendant from using the timing of any such appeal to disrupt the Court’s trial date, the Court should promptly consider and decide his immunity and double jeopardy motions. If the Court rules in the Government’s favor and the defendant appeals, the Government will take all possible measures to expedite the appeal, see Apostol v. Gallion, 870 F.2d 1335, 1339-40 (7th Cir. 1989) (identifying mechanisms such as requesting summary affirmance or asking to expedite the appeal), just as the defendant sought to expedite his appeal of the Court’s Rule 57.7 Order—relief that the court of appeals provided. See United States v. Trump, No. 23-3190, Order (D.C. Cir. Nov. 3, 2023) (expediting merits briefing and oral argument). In any event, although a non-frivolous appeal would temporarily divest this Court of jurisdiction, it would do so over only “those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per curiam). In sum, the Court’s prompt resolution of the defendant’s immunity and double jeopardy claims would best position this case to stay on track with its current pretrial schedule and trial date.
.
so maybe I missed it?