Are we the only ones who find it passing strange that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s first move in his criminal case against President Trump is to file in Florida for a delay of the trial? It’s almost as if Judge Aileen Cannon, who set August 14 as the trial date, has called the government’s bluff and found the government not ready to act on its charges. That, in our view, is no small thing, given that the right to a speedy trial belongs to the accused.

It would be one thing for Mr. Trump to request a delay. Mr. Smith’s filing mentions that defense counsel does not contest the motion to ask for a delay, although they reserve the right to put forward their own schedule for trial. Mr. Smith argues that the current date “would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation.” It could be that Mr. Trump will agree. 

No doubt a trial that centers on the nation’s secrets will demand that Mr. Trump’s attorneys have the clearances required to defend their client. That is, though, Mr. Smith’s responsibility, nearly one year after the search at Mar-a-Lago that began this whole business in earnest. Plus, it was Mr. Smith’s choice to bring charges in Florida’s southern district, known for its “rocket docket,” or speedy trials, where he likely believes that a conviction can be best secured.  

As for that promise of dispatch. The Sixth Amendment ordains that it is “the accused” in criminal cases who shall “enjoy” a “speedy and public trial.” The speedy right belongs not to Mr. Smith, or Judge Cannon, or anyone else aside from Mr. Trump. It is the “accused” whose name and liberty are at stake and who would be harmed by a delay. The sages themselves warned that the “sword comes into the world, because of justice delayed and justice denied.”  

That Mr. Smith might be unready to bring his case by August is no reason for a delay. The burden in criminal cases is always on and only on the accuser. And the timing is especially important when it comes to a case in which a sitting president is going after his leading challenger in a national election. A request for a delay until the start of the campaign suggests on the part of Mr. Smith a willingness to mix prosecution and politics. 

It could be that Mr. Trump, with an eye on the primary season and his own considerations, will request an even more lavish delay. Or, he could sense an interest in a more proximate trial. The point to mark is that he enjoys the right. Judge Cannon on Monday rejected Mr. Smith’s request that a list of potential witnesses be kept secret, suggesting that she will keep her own counsel. So too, can Mr. Trump. In this, he has the Constitution on his side.