A federal judge on Tuesday denied six motions as part of former President Donald Trump’s federal case for his alleged role in overturning the 2020 election and the January 6 riots.
The motions appeared on the court’s docket one day after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan set a trial date for March 4, 2024, which is the day before Trump’s “Super Tuesday” primaries in 15 states and one territory.
Grand jury selection is set to start as part of a trial that the Department of Justice and special counsel Jack Smith initially planned to expedite.
Trump and his legal team quickly rebuked Chutkan for the date, arguing that it denies the 45th president a fair trial and continued “the corruption of the witch hunts” against him. They made reference to all four of the former president’s indictments, in which he has maintained his innocence.
John Lauro, one of Trump’s attorneys, got into a heated exchange with Chutkan on Monday when he called the 2024 trial schedule “absurd.”
“For a federal prosecutor to suggest that we could go to trial in four months is not only absurd, but it’s a violation of their oath to do justice,” Lauro said. “This is one of the most unique cases from a legal perspective ever brought in the history of the United States. Ever.”
Chutkan then reprimanded his tone and assured that Trump would receive a fair trial in time for the 2024 presidential election.
“I want to note here that setting a trial date does not depend and should not depend on the defendant’s personal or professional obligations,” the judge said.
One of the five briefs Chutkan rejected was submitted by an unknown party “in support of Donald Trump,” while the other four lacked a clear indication of their position in the investigation. The court’s only statement, which did not include any of the briefs’ actual content, was as follows:
“Although Courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third-party submissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures nor the Local Rules contemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs,” court records read. “At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedures course by permitting this filing.”
