11 Prominent Judges And Attorneys Who Served As High-Level Appointees In GOP Administrations Submit Proposed Amicus Brief In Support Of Government’s Request For Speedy Trial In Trump 2020 Election Interference Case

| |    by

A group of 11 prominent judges and attorneys who served as high-level appointees by Republican Administrations submitted a proposed amicus brief today to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia supporting the government’s proposal for a speedy trial in the election interference and January 6 case against former President Donald Trump.

The proposed brief was submitted to U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan with a motion requesting that she accept it.

Special Counsel Jack Smith has requested a trial start date of January 2, 2024 in the case United States v. Donald J. Trump.

The amici include: J. Michael Luttig, former Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General under President George W. Bush; and Donald B. Ayer, Deputy Attorney General under President George H.W. Bush. Seven of the amici served in senior positions in the Justice Department or as U.S. Attorneys during Republican Administrations.

(See full list of amici here.)

“The serious offenses alleged in United States v. Donald J. Trump constitute a knife to the heart of America’s democracy and its democratic system of government and governance,” according to the proposed brief. “The former President’s trial is of transcendent consequence for the Nation.”

The government’s proposal, according to the proposed brief, “is reasonable and it appropriately accounts for the American public’s interest in a prompt resolution of this profoundly important case. Just as importantly, the government’s proposal respects and serves the former President’s own interest in a speedy trial.”

The proposed brief states:

“As the eyes of democracies around the world look to America as the continuing proof of democracy’s promise, it is important that this prosecution and the trial of the former President be resolved expeditiously, consistent with Constitution and the rule of law. The Constitution and laws of the United States contemplate and provide for nothing less – in recognition of the rights belonging to both the former President and the people of the United States of America.”

The case is historic, according to the proposed brief. “There is no more important issue facing America and the American people — and to the very functioning of democracy — than whether the former President is guilty of criminally undermining America’s elections and American democracy in order to remain in power.”

In their argument, the amici make two key points:

  • The Constitution’s Sixth Amendment and the federal Speedy Trial Act protect both the American public’s right to a speedy trial and the former’s President’s right to a speedy trial; and
  • Both the former President’s and the nation’s interests overwhelmingly favor the expeditious resolution of this criminal prosecution, pursuant to the government’s proposed trial date and schedule.

Former President Trump “is entitled to this speedy trial as a matter of law. He is not entitled to an unjust delay in his trial to serve his purely personal and political interests in the delay of his trial,” according to the proposed brief.

According to the proposed brief:

“[T]he defenses the former President’s counsel have indicated they may raise on behalf of the former President are unlikely to delay this Court. Nowithstanding his claims to the contrary, it is indisputable that the former President lost the 2020 presidential election by a vote of the American people and that the incumbent President, Joseph Biden, won that election, as countless authorities have universally concluded.”

The case is unique and of overarching historical significance, but it is also straightforward, according to the proposed brief, which notes that there are no co-defendants and will involve a minimal amount of classified information.

“[B]ased on the extensive experience of amici, a speedy trial on the schedule proposed by the United States government appears both practicable and to satisfy the former President’s constitutional and statutory right to a speedy trial,” the proposed brief states.

The attorneys for the proposed amicus brief include Democracy 21 Education Fund President Fred Wertheimer and Matthew J. Peed of Clinton & Peed.

Read the proposed amicus brief here.

#     #     #