Judge Aileen Cannon of the U.S. District Court has delayed the legal proceedings against former President Donald Trump regarding his alleged mishandling of classified documents. Trump has until May 9 to disclose which classified documents he intends to use in his defense, as per an order from Cannon on Wednesday.
“That’s not an unreasonable length of time to give Trump — it’s typical to give defendants in NatSec cases several weeks to draft their Sec 5 notice so it’s sufficiently specific. But a May 9 deadline might be frustrating for the Special Counsel,” Lowell wrote on X.
“Special Counsel proposed March 18 deadline for Trump to file his Sec 5 notice, in order to get to a July 2024 trial,” he added. “No way that is happening now, given deadline is 7 weeks later. But she also didn’t give Trump the June 17 deadline he wanted — so no 11th Circuit ammo either.”
Special counsel Jack Smith had proposed a March 18 deadline for Trump to submit the notice under Section 5 of the Classified Information Procedures Act in order to prepare for a July 2024 trial. However, with the later deadline, it appears the trial will likely be pushed back beyond July.
The case against Trump includes 37 criminal charges related to his alleged unlawful holding of classified documents at his estate in Florida after leaving office in 2021. These accusations involve lying to investigators, obstructing justice, and violating the Espionage Act.
Judge Cannon has not yet set a trial date but recently granted Special Counsel Smith’s request to conceal witness identities from the defense to protect their safety. Smith had argued that revealing witness names could lead to potential harassment. Witness statements may be disclosed, but any information that may identify them will be redacted.
Smith’s team filed an appeal earlier this week, urging Cannon to decide on jury instructions concerning the Presidential Records Act. Trump has asserted that the PRA allowed him to declassify any documents found at his Mar-a-Lago estate, but Smith contends that Trump’s reliance on the PRA is legally baseless.
