In recent developments, the legal team representing Donald Trump has spoken out, asserting that the government should cease attempts to ‘try Trump in absentia’. The lawyers’ charges have come amidst their continued efforts in the DC election interference prosecution, shifting from claims that prosecutors had withheld evidence, to now, allegations of illegal evidence production.
On December 13th, Judge Chutkan stayed all deadlines in the case, pending the resolution of Trump’s appeal based on the grounds of the argued principle of ‘presidential absolute immunity’. Yet, just last week, the special counsel requested an expedited review by the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court before judgment, a move Trump has criticized.
As per the schedule, the DC Circuit will conduct a hearing regarding the matter on January 9. The Supreme Court has instructed Trump to respond to the special counsel’s petition by Wednesday. In the meantime, prosecutors continue to present their case, aiming to bring the case to trial by March.
Interestingly, while the stagnation in the proceedings continues, prosecutors submitted a Notice of Service, which was promptly responded to by Trump’s defense team. The defense declared this move as ‘illegal’, emphasizing that while the stay is pending, no documents should be sent from the government.
Echoing this sentiment, Trump’s lawyer, John Lauro, expressed his irritability concerning the issue, stating that he should not be compelled to study the discovery. This notion of the case proceeding in absentia is one he vehemently rejects. At the same time, he has threatened that any late production by prosecutors may pose serious consequences.
Lauro has also requested a review of the gag order, forbidding Trump from making any attacks on witnesses involved in the case, an appeal that the DC Circuit confirmed recently. He claims that this order infracts on the core political speech of the potential presidential candidate, impacting more than 100 million American voters, and argues that it is based on speculated future harms to the judicial process.
For more information, follow the developments of the case on US v. Trump District Docket and US v. Trump Circuit Docket via Court Listener.