Special counsel Jack Smith is prosecuting President Trump in two cases, one of which has been stalled and the other likely to follow.
In Florida, he has charged President Trump with 40 counts related to mishandling classified documents, and the parties have been litigating over access to classified information for months.
With the New York criminal case underway, President Trump will be required in New York at least four days a week to attend trial.
“Yet, the SCO [Special Counsel Office] makes no effort to actually identify how the government would be prejudiced by an extension of time to allow President Trump and his counsel the right to defend him in New York and before this court,” defense attorneys argued.
“The SCO then ignores the obvious and substantial prejudice to President Trump.”
On April 14, the special counsel had argued that the defense had material relevant to their upcoming May 9 court filing deadline for three months already, and they should have no problem meeting it.
The trial was originally set for May 20 and all but guaranteed to be delayed, though U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon has not set a new date.
In court filings, prosecutors proposed a July 8 trial, President Trump proposed an Aug. 12 trial, and codefendant Waltine Nauta proposed a Sept. 8 trial.
“Simply put, President Trump and his counsel cannot prepare—or even discuss—the required filings anywhere but an appropriate SCIF, a virtually impossible task given President Trump and Messrs. Blanche and Bove’s involvement in People v. Trump ... in New York,” defense attorneys argued.
The defense took issue with the special counsel’s argument that President Trump’s constitutional rights were “not implicated” without an adjournment because he would “only” be on trial four days a week.
“This premise is untethered to reality and disregards the substantial motion practice that has occurred before this court,” the defense argued.
Defense attorneys argued that they “have not been sitting idle” for the past three months, as evidenced by the several motions they have filed, including four motions to dismiss charges.
However, to finish some pending pretrial motions, the defense, including President Trump, would need to confer in a “sensitive compartmented information facility,” or a location specifically secured and designated for reviewing classified information.
The prosecutors had in an earlier court filing faulted President Trump for choosing the same attorneys for multiple cases, and the defense argued that it was his due process right to have the attorneys of his choice.
Attorneys Emil Bove and Mr. Blanche are representing President Trump in both New York and Florida, and in the court filing, Mr. Blanche and Mr. Kise argued that even the special counsel has noted that Mr. Bove was “indispensable” to the case.
“This argument is disingenuous at best, because just last month at a hearing before this court, the SCO lauded Mr. Bove and recognized his indispensability to President Trump’s team in filing a [classified information related] notice,” the defense argued.
Prosecutors had said at a hearing, “We have every expectation knowing ... Mr. Bove and his experience ... in this case they will file ... a sufficient notice.”
Mr. Bove is taking the lead on the classified information litigation in the documents case and is representing President Trump in court in New York.
Mr. Blanche and Mr. Kise claimed the prosecutors were being “disingenuous at best” in arguing President Trump’s overlapping cases can be handled by local counsel if other attorneys are busy.
On May 9, President Trump will need to set forth what classified information they believe is necessary to his defense, which is at a “critical stage,” attorneys argued, and they cannot leave this to only local counsel now and move on without Mr. Bove.
“As the SCO is well aware, local counsel are not even able to discuss the relevant issues or seek any guidance from Mr. Bove outside the Florida SCIF,” the defense argued.
Defense attorneys said that the government found no prior cases with similar situations with which to rely, and urged the court to delay the May 9 deadline by three weeks after the New York trial.
