Special Council Jack Smith’s accusation that President Trump “misrepresents the record” in moving for a Mar-a-Lago trial date after the 2024 election underscores the government’s rush to try Mr. Trump before his possible return to the White House.

The allegation of dishonesty comes in a filing to Judge Aileen Cannon. Mr. Smith opposes Mr. Trump’s push for a delay past “mid-November” 2024. The special counsel argues that Mr. Trump’s team “disregards their own demonstrated ability” to participate in the back and forth that is a trial’s runway and “misrepresents the record” of how Mr. Smith has complied with his legal obligations. 

Those legal obligations, which fall on the prosecutor rather than the defendant, are ordained by the Supreme Court in a 1963 case, Brady v. Maryland. The justices ruled that the prosecution is obligated to turn over to the defendants any material evidence that could prove exculpatory. To suppress such evidence would be unlawful.  

Mr. Trump argues that the government has been slow-walking those obligations, which lie at the heart of the due process the Constitution ordains as a right belonging to criminal defendants. It is “not so,” Mr. Smith replies, that his office has been “dilatory in producing discovery.” He points to 800,000 pages of evidence that were turned over to Mr. Trump “within one day” of his arraignment. 

The special counsel tallies the “approximately 1.3 million pages of unclassified discovery” he has turned over to Mr. Trump and argues that the former president’s legal team has demonstrated the “ability to thoroughly review and analyze the discovery it has been provided,” meaning that a delay from the current May trial date would be unjustified. The defense, though, apparently does not think it will be able to do the necessary work in the limited time the prosecution wants to allot.

Touting the “thorough and organized nature” of the government’s work, Mr. Smith chides Mr. Trump for having “ridiculed the government” for not producing materials that prosecutors claim that they have, indeed, produced. The special counsel is pushing for  a “date certain rather than …. indefinite delay.”

At the same time, Mr. Smith discloses that there have been “unforeseen complications regarding the defense’s access to some of the classified material.” Although he asserts that those have been “resolved,” he cites these glitches as the reason he “does not object to an extension until October 30” for Mr. Trump to file motions relating to those documents.

Secrecy envelops the precise nature of these “complications.” If they were significant, though, a delay could be the least of Mr. Smith’s worries. The Legal Information Institute notes that the “most common outcome of a Brady rule violation is overturning that conviction. Additionally, if the prosecution withheld Brady material intentionally or knowingly, they may be subject to sanctions.” 

In attempting to ward off the argument that these “access issues” are sufficient grounds for a major trial delay, Mr. Smith maintains that the “total volume of classified discovery — approximately 5,500 pages — is manageable,” even if the materials “amounted to more pages than originally estimated.” He also notes that Mr. Trump elected not to review certain documents for “over a week,” possibly due to the tremendous tangle of his legal troubles, not to mention his responsibilities as the leading GOP candidate for president.

Mr. Smith’s argument for alacrity comes after a contentious hearing last week, when Judge Cannon accused prosecutors of “wasting the court’s time” by raising arguments during a hearing that had not been properly briefed. She called the special counsel’s approach a “last-minute introduction” of relevant information, a species of gamesmanship disfavored by judges.