Q&A of the Day – The Timeline of Trump’s Trials
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Submitted via talkback. Asking about the request for “Speedy Trials” in the pending criminal cases against former President Donald Trump.
Bottom Line: Speedy trials being sought in the cases involving former and perhaps future President Donald Trump have been in the news over the past week. Most notably, following the fourth and what appears to be final arrest of Donald Trump, at least for now, the Fulton County prosecutor who brought the charges against Trump and his associates, filed for a speedy trial. She wasn’t alone. Special Prosecutor Jack Smith who’s brought both federal cases pending against Trump, filed paperwork last week calling for a speedy trial in the January 6th case. In the filing by Smith in response to Trump’s team seeking a trial date in 2026, he said: In service of a proposed trial date in 2026 that would deny the public its right to a speedy trial, the defendant cites inapposite statistics and cases, overstates the amount of new and non-duplicative discovery, and exaggerates the challenge of reviewing it effectively. In other words, Trump’s legal team is saying that they need a lot of time to put together a proper defense to the charges. Smith is saying...no they don’t. Today’s question and the point behind it are instructive.
Questions already abound regarding the potential for prosecutorial overreach and potential misconduct in each of the criminal cases brought against Donald Trump. While most Americans now say they believe Donald Trump has committed a crime or crimes, a majority also now say they believe President Joe Biden has as well. And related, as I shared yesterday, only 12% of Americans now believe that justice is applied to all Americans equally. That takes us to the question posed today. Aside from the potential overreach with prosecutors pressing the four cases against Trump, is there potential overreach in the effort to seek a “speedy trial” which coincides with the presidential election cycle? I’ll start with the Georgia RICO case against Trump & co. as it’s the most recent and perhaps the most directly telling.
Yesterday we learned the arraignment for Trump and the 18 other defendants in the Fulton County, Georgia RICO case will take place September 6th. Prosecutor Fanni Willis, citing the need for a “speedy trial”, has requested an October 23rd start date for the trial and within six months at a minimum. That’s noteworthy for a couple of reasons. Under Georgia’s RICO law there’s only one case which has gone to trial, and it just so happened to be a high-profile case that gained national attention and was prosecuted by none other than Fanni Willis. The same prosecutor trying the Trump case. The previous GA RICO case was the 2009 Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal. In the scandal, 178 Atlanta area public school educators were implicated and 35 were indicted as part of a scheme to artificially improve the standardized test scores of students. 23 of the educators took plea deals and the other 12 went to trial. The original indictment took place on March 29th of 2013. The trial for the 12 who declined to enter a plea deal began on September 29th of 2014 and concluded on April 1st of 2015. It was 18 months from the indictment to the start of the trial. That’s a length of time, which if applied in the Trump case, wouldn’t occur until after next year’s Presidential election. However, now the same prosecutor trying the same type of case is seeking two months from indictment to trial. It’s clear there’s an effort at a double standard. As for the federal cases...
Yesterday a federal judge in Washington D.C. set March 4th, the day before Super Tuesday, as the date for the January 6th related case against Trump. This follows a previously scheduled May 14th trial date for the classified documents case pending against Trump in Ft. Pierce. Both of those dates are well ahead of typical time horizons for trials in federal cases. The quickest federal cases arrive at trial is around 12 months, with 18 months being the norm. And lest we forget the first of the four cases brought against Trump, the New York, Stormy Daniels hush money case, had previously been scheduled for March 24th. In all of these instances we’re seeing a significantly accelerated timeline for these trial dates either being sought, or in the case of the federal cases, scheduled. The former president has routinely referred to these cases as election interference. While people are entitled to their opinion as to whether they feel these trials should begin during the election season, what’s evidenced is that all of the cases have or are seeking rapidly accelerated timelines which aren’t consistent with the type of trial or the charges being brought against the defendants, including the former president. As always there are two sides to stories and one side to facts. Those are the facts.