Trump’s Trials and Tribulations: An Update from Courthouses Around the Country
Sep 16, 2023
auto_awesome
Lawfare editors and legal fellows discuss ongoing Trump trials, including events at Mar-a-Lago and Judge Tanya Chutkan's courthouse. They delve into 14th Amendment litigation, multiple election cases, and Trump's eligibility. The podcast also explores defense and prosecution strategies, along with indictment recommendations in Georgia.
Judge Tanya Chutkan is unlikely to recuse herself from the Trump trials despite the defense's motion alleging bias.
Judge Meda will review surveillance footage to assess if the jury in Navarro's case was unduly influenced by protests happening outside the courthouse.
The interpretation of the removal statute for federal officials remains uncertain as additional briefing is prompted in Mark Meadows' appeal.
Deep dives
Trump's attorneys seek recusal of Judge Chetkin
Trump's attorneys have filed a motion to recuse Judge Tanya Chetkin, alleging bias based on her comments in previous January 6th cases. However, these comments were not explicitly about Trump. The defense cites 18 U.S.C. Section 455A, arguing that the judge's impartiality is reasonably questioned. Despite the defense's claims, Judge Chetkin has shown no clear bias and has allowed the defense ample time to present their arguments in court. Overall, it is unlikely that the motion for recusal will be ruled in favor of Trump.
Issue raised about potential bias from courthouse protests
In Navarro's case, his attorney has raised concerns that the jury may have been unduly influenced by the protests happening outside the courthouse. The jury was taken out for fresh air and may have been exposed to signs or actions that could have impacted their deliberations. Judge Meda will review surveillance footage to assess the extent of the potential influence. While the objection raises valid concerns, it remains to be seen whether the jurors were actually influenced and if a mistrial would be declared.
Former federal officials and removal statute
The 11th Circuit has prompted additional briefing on whether the removal statute for federal officials applies to former federal officials or only current ones. This question arose in the context of Mark Meadows' appeal. The statute itself does not explicitly address the status of former officials, leading to different interpretations. While some argue that the statute only applies to current officials, others contend that it should encompass former officials for acts committed while in office. The ultimate interpretation of the statute remains uncertain, as does the outcome of Meadows' appeal.
The Special Grand Jury's Recommendations and the Possibility of Appeals
The special grand jury recommended charges against three senators, including Lindsey Graham. While there was speculation about the involvement of members of the House in the January 6th events, the charging recommendations did not include them. The reasons for this distinction are not clear, as the report provides limited information on the evidence and scope of the investigation. It is possible that the jurisdiction, venue, or lack of relevant conduct were factors. The charges against Purdue and Loeffler relate to communications attempting to pressure individuals to overturn the election and potential false statements made by Purdue. The speech and debate clause may have been a complicating factor in the decision not to pursue charges against members of Congress. Overall, the decision-making process and considerations behind the grand jury's recommendations are not fully known.
The Role of Coordination and Communication Between Prosecution Teams
Contrary to some suggestions, there is no rule preventing prosecutors from different teams from talking to each other. However, federal prosecutors are generally restricted in sharing grand jury information, though an exception exists for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Prudential reasons, such as avoiding the appearance of collusion, may discourage extensive coordination between prosecution teams. While they can share information, there may be caution in doing so, especially when the defendant claims conspiracy or coordination between the teams. The rule was not designed to prohibit communication, but rather to protect the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. Coordination between federal and state prosecutions can occur when appropriate, but prudence and strategic considerations may limit full collaboration.
It's another episode of “Trump’s Trials and Tribulations,” our weekly video conversation with Lawfare editors and writers on the ongoing Trump trials. On Thursday afternoon, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with Lawfare Senior Editor Roger Parloff and Lawfare Legal Fellows Saraphin Dhanani and Anna Bower. They talked about what's going on in Mar-a-Lago, what's going on in Fulton County, and what’s going on in Judge Tanya Chutkan’s courthouse in Washington. Will Judge Chutkan recuse herself? They also talked about Section 3 litigation under the 14th Amendment in Colorado, Minnesota, and elsewhere.
