According to Mediate, Federal District Judge Tanya Chutkan has issued a stern response to former President Donald Trump’s legal team following their motion demanding her recusal from a trial related to charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. The motion was based on statements Judge Chutkan made during the sentencing of other defendants involved in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
In their motion, Trump’s attorneys argued that Judge Chutkan’s comments during the sentencing of a defendant named Palmer indicated her apparent opinion that President Trump should be charged in connection with the events of January 6. They claimed that her remarks reflected an unwarranted bias against Trump.
In response, Judge Chutkan has ordered Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team to file any opposition to the motion within a specified time frame, setting a deadline of September 14, 2023, for the government to respond. Additionally, she has reminded Trump’s legal team of their obligation to confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion and to indicate whether the motion is opposed. Failure to comply with this requirement in future motions could result in those motions being denied without prejudice.
Judge Chutkan’s order also clarifies that this issue will not affect any other deadlines that the court has previously set, ensuring that the legal proceedings related to the charges against Donald Trump and others will continue on schedule.
This development underscores the complexity and sensitivity of the legal proceedings surrounding the January 6 Capitol attack and the differing perspectives among legal professionals involved in the case. The question of judicial impartiality and potential biases in high-profile cases like this one remains a subject of intense scrutiny and debate.
In making these statements, Judge Chutkan agreed with portions of defendant Palmer’s sentencing memorandum, which similarly (and wrongly) placed blame on President Trump and complained that he had not been charged. No. 1:21-cr-00328-TSC, ECF #31 at 8–9 (Sentencing Memorandum) ([Palmer Defense Counsel]: “Those voices, including the voice of the then-president himself, had convinced persons such as Mr. Palmer that the election was fraudulent and that they must take action to stop the transition of the presidency. . . . While many of the people who participated in the Capitol riot will be going to prison, the architects of that horrific event will likely never be charged with any criminal offense.”).
Although Judge Chutkan correctly noted that she does not have any influence on charging decisions, her above comments stating “you have made a very good point . . . that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged” and “you have a point, that the people who may be the people who planned this and funded it and encouraged it haven’t been charged, but that’s not a reason for you to get a lower sentence” reflect her apparent opinion that President Trump’s conduct: (1) occurred, and (2) supports charges (otherwise, she would not have characterized the point as “very good.”). Similarly, Judge Chutkan’s statement that “I have my opinions” suggests that in her view—formed almost two years before the initiation of this matter—President Trump should be charged.
Following that motion, Judge Chutkan issued an order demanding Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team file any opposition within three days and warning Trump’s lawyers to give Smith notice before filing such a motion or risk having future motions “denied without prejudice”:
MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Upon consideration of Defendant’s 50 Motion for Recusal, it is hereby ORDERED that the government shall file any opposition no later than September 14, 2023, and the defense shall file any reply within three calendar days from the filing date of the government’s opposition. All other deadlines set by the court remain in effect. Defense counsel is reminded of the requirement to confer with opposing counsel before filing any motion and to indicate whether the motion is opposed. See 09/05/2023 Second Minute Order. Future motions that fail to comply with that requirement may be denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/11/2023.
