A federal judge in Florida held a hearing on Friday to consider a new date for former President Donald J. Trump’s trial on charges of mishandling classified documents, but made no immediate decision about a choice that could have major consequences for both his legal and political future.
Four months ago, the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, declared she was inclined to make some “reasonable adjustments” to the timing of the classified documents trial, which was originally scheduled to start on May 20 in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla. But by holding off on making a decision at the hearing on Friday, Judge Cannon further delayed resolving the question of how long the trial would be postponed.
In all of Mr. Trump’s criminal cases, the issue of timing has been paramount in a way that is unusual for most prosecutions. He is facing four separate indictments in four different cities, and proceedings have to be scheduled in relation to each other and against the busy backdrop of his presidential campaign.
The daylong hearing in Fort Pierce reflected those intersecting complications as federal prosecutors and Mr. Trump’s lawyers sparred not only over the thorny legal issues involved in the case, but also over the separate complexities of taking Mr. Trump to trial as he runs for office and juggles his crowded legal calendar.
The former president attended the proceeding, appearing almost cheerful in a way that he has not during visits to other courtrooms. Jack Smith, the special counsel who has twice indicted Mr. Trump on federal charges, was also in attendance and the two men shot fleeting glances at one another, at one point appearing to lock eyes.
At Judge Cannon’s request, Mr. Trump’s lawyers and Mr. Smith’s prosecutors had sent her competing proposals about when the trial should begin on the night before the hearing was held.
The prosecutors, hewing to their long-held position of trying to conduct the trial before Election Day, had requested a date of July 8. But Mr. Trump’s legal team made an odd, double-barreled request, arguing that he could not get a fair trial until after the election but also suggesting a start date of Aug. 12, almost three months before voters would go to the polls.
Mr. Trump’s lawyers used a similar split-screen argument at the hearing itself, saying on the one hand that they could live with a trial date in August, but arguing on the other that trying Mr. Trump in the months before November was “completely unfair” to him and “the American people.”
At one point, one of the lawyers, Emil Bove, complained that Mr. Trump should not have been in court at all on Friday and should have been out campaigning in advance of primaries on Super Tuesday, neglecting to mention that his client was under no obligation to be in the courtroom.
Judge Cannon never really pressed Mr. Trump’s legal team on the tension between its proposal for a summer trial and its argument that a trial before November would amount to “election interference.”
But one of the prosecutors, Jay I. Bratt, referred to the defense’s proposed schedule as “fake dates” that were offered in “almost bad faith.” Mr. Bratt suggested that the defense’s true intention was to simply get a trial date on the books and then ask for further adjournments down the road.
Under questioning from Judge Cannon, Mr. Bratt, for the first time, publicly asserted that if a trial was conducted in September and October, the government would not be violating a Justice Department policy against holding proceedings too close to an election — a provision known as the “60-day rule.” He said that the policy forbade prosecutors from bringing new charges in the run-up to an election, but did not stop them from prosecuting an indictment that had already been filed.
On occasion during the hearing, Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump and has been on the bench for less than four years, seemed a bit uncomfortable with the…
This article was originally published by a www.nytimes.com . Read the Original article here. .