A group of distinguished Republican lawyers — including retired judges and prosecutors — has filed a friend of the court brief urging the District of Columbia judge to begin President Trump’s criminal trial on January 2, 2024. 

The Georgia District Attorney has said she would try to begin his criminal trial within six months of the indictment. The judge in his Florida case has suggested a date of May 20, 2024. And the district attorney of New York has suggested that he would be willing to delay Trump’s trial until the others are complete.

To force any criminal defendant in a complex case to begin the trial before his lawyers can reasonably prepare would violate his right to a fair trial under the Constitution. The defendant is entitled to a speedy trial; the government is not. Prosecutors and judges must afford the defendant full opportunity to prepare and to present a zealous defense.

The Washington, D.C. and Georgia cases are extraordinarily complex. They involve multi-count indictments, numerous witnesses, thousands of documents and videotapes, and other material requiring careful vetting and planning. They require numerous pretrial motions — some involving extensive investigation. 

There will be discovery, and possible pretrial appeals. The Georgia case in particular is shaping up to be among the most complex political trials in modern history, involving 19 defendants, a nearly hundred-page indictment, and probably 50 or 60 lawyers. The D.C. case names unindicted co-conspirators and flipped witnesses. 

In my 60 years of practicing, teaching and writing about criminal law, I have never seen a rush to judgment quite like this. As an experienced criminal defense lawyer, I could not possibly accord any of my clients the kind of defense guaranteed by the 6th Amendment in so short a period of time.

Judges and prosecutors in the Trump case have gone out of their way to say that they will not be influenced by electoral, political or partisan considerations – that they will treat this defendant like any other defendant. 

Yet these efforts to speed up the trial are completely political and partisan. The expressed goal is to get convictions before the 2024 election, so that voters can consider those damning, but as yet un-appealed, verdicts in deciding for whom to cast their vote.

If the election were not scheduled for November of 2024, these cases would be put on the usual schedule, which generally involves more than a year of preparation for such complex cases.

Moreover, even if the trials could be commenced on these rushed schedules, the trials themselves promise to take a long time. Jury selection alone will be time-consuming in some of the courts, and both sides are likely to call numerous witnesses. Mr. Trump will have to spend months sitting in court and in his lawyers’ offices right in the midst of his campaign.

When these prosecutors indicted Mr. Trump, they knew full well that it was highly unlikely that the trials would be concluded before Election Day. Any claim that it was the grand jury, not the prosecutors, who decided on the timing should fool no one. Prosecutors decide who to indict, when to indict, and what trial date to seek. 

They obviously intended to try to influence the election by the very fact that Trump was indicted. The theoretical presumption of innocence doesn’t generally operate in the court of public opinion, despite rote reminders by prosecutors that the defendant must be presumed innocent even after being indicted. 

An indictment is only the formal beginning of the criminal process. There are motions, the trial and appeals. The timing of these indictments precludes any appeals from being decided before the election. That is precisely what prosecutors want, because they know that their cases are particularly vulnerable to critical appellate review. 

When the leading candidate running against the incumbent is being prosecuted, it is incumbent on prosecutors, especially if they belong to the political party of the incumbent, to cut square corners. The prosecution must not only be fair; it must be seen to be fair. 

Trying to rush these cases to trial will not only be seen to be unfair. It will be grossly unfair. Indeed it would be so unfair that appeals from the rushed timing might well be granted, especially if prejudice can be shown.