Judge Aileen Cannon wrote that it “would be imprudent” to finalize a start date “at this juncture,” noting that a number of pre-trial issued have not been solved.
The Mar-a-Lago seized documents case against Donald Trump has been indefinitely postponed. The trial was set to begin on May 20.
In a court order, Judge Aileen Cannon wrote that it "would be imprudent" to finalize a start date "at this juncture," noting that a number of pre-trial issues have not been solved.
"The Court also determines that finalization of a trial date at this juncture—before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and CIPA issues remaining and forthcoming—would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court, critical CIPA issues, and additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury," Cannon wrote.
"The Court therefore vacates the current May 20, 2024 trial date (and associated calendar call), to be reset by separate order following resolution of the matters before the Court, consistent with Defendants’ right to due process and the public’s interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice."
In place of the start of the trial, Judge Cannon set a number of pre-trial hearings and deadlines. The latest of these takes place in July.
Among the dates set is a partial evidentiary hearing taking place June 24 through 26 on "Defendants’ Consolidated Motions to Compel Discovery and to Define Scope of Prosecution Team."
A version of Donald Trump’s motion to compel discovery in the Mar-a-Lago documents case was released with much of the previously redacted information revealed after a court order from Cannon in late April.
Special counsel Jack Smith argued to the judge in February that the request for unredacted discovery of materials should be denied. In the court filing, Smith argued that the "defendants’ request for unredacted discovery of materials should be denied."
Smith said that "Redactions to the discovery in this case were made for information such as the FBI’s case file number, the email addresses of FBI employees, classification markings that no longer applied to now-unclassified documents, and other similarly non-discoverable information."
"The defendants have not articulated why redactions in particular documents contain information that is materially helpful to the defense, as required by the case law."
This is a breaking story. Please refresh the page for updates.
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
