Heading into 2024, former President Donald Trump encountered a wave of litigation that made this presidential election cycle unlike any other in American history. With four criminal cases pending, speculation abounds as to whether the former president and presumptive GOP nominee would have to campaign from some kind of detention.
That is appearing increasingly unlikely just five months into the year as pre-trial delays pile up and legal analysts question whether some of the trials will even begin before the election. That prospect was bolstered by two court decisions in the second week of May.
On May 7, Judge Aileen Cannon, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, indefinitely prolonged a pre-trial process that started last June for the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. It was initially scheduled for May 20 but, according to Judge Cannon, more time was needed to address pre-trial motions.
After Judge Cannon announced she would delay the trial, Georgia’s court of appeals said it would review Judge Scott McAfee’s decision not to disqualify the head prosecutor, Fani Willis, in the 2020 election interference case in Fulton County.
“By the time briefing, oral arguments, a decision, and a likely appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court happen, we'll be well into the fall,” former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told The Epoch Times.
Other attorneys have told The Epoch Times that the Georgia case isn’t expected to start until after the election. Ms. Willis had requested that the trial start on Aug. 5.
Kevin O'Brien, a former assistant U.S. attorney, previously told The Epoch Times that “no one” knows when the Georgia trial will start. “Even under the best of circumstances, it wasn’t going to start until next year,” he said.
Immunity and Future Proceedings
The Georgia appeal is the latest of several to take President Trump’s cases out of their originating courts during the pre-trial phase. President Trump has indicated he’s pursuing a strategy of delay so that he can spend more time on the campaign trail.The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to release its ruling on the scope of presidential immunity, an issue President Trump brought through appeal from his Jan. 6-related case in Washington. That trial was supposed to start on March 4 but got delayed by President Trump’s immunity appeal, which made its way to the Supreme Court after another hearing and ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Even after those findings, the trial could face further delay based on potential appeals from either President Trump’s legal team or DOJ in response to some of Judge Chutkan’s pre-trial decisions.
Even the so-called hush money verdict could theoretically be appealed based on the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. That trial was scheduled to start on March 25 but was postponed until April 15.
President Trump has also raised immunity arguments in his Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and Georgia election case.
Uncertain Timeline
While President Trump could face convictions after the election, it’s unclear whether the trials will conclude by then. If the pre-trial phases extend past his inauguration, he would almost certainly order the Justice Department to cease prosecutions in his classified documents case and the election-related case he faces in Washington.Meanwhile, the judge in the documents case, Judge Cannon, is an appointee of former President Trump who has been widely criticized for the pace at which she’s conducted the pre-trial proceedings.
“She’s inexperienced, made terrible rulings, and has favored Trump at every possible turn, and this indefinite delay is a big win for the former president,” Mr. Rahmani told The Epoch Times.
Judge Cannon’s May 7 order posited that the court was being prudent by taking additional time to fairly consider the pre-trial motions in the case.
“The Court … determines that finalization of a trial date at this juncture—before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and CIPA [Classified Information Procedures Act] issues remaining and forthcoming—would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court,” Judge Cannon said.
The judge also cited “eight substantive pretrial motions” while arguing the “ends of justice served by this continuance … outweigh the best interest of the public and Defendants in a speedy trial.” Those included President Trump’s motion to dismiss based on presidential immunity and another based on selective and vindictive prosecution.
